Agenda 10 july 2013

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday 10 July, 2013

*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***

VENUE:

Reception Room,

Bendigo Town Hall,

Hargreaves Street, Bendigo

NEXT MEETING:

Wednesday 31 July 2013

Bendigo Town Hall

Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Council’s Agendas & Minutes can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au

http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/

Council Vision

Our residents can live healthy and satisfying lives in our vibrant City and region, confident in its growth and future.

Council Purpose and Values Councillors have made a commitment in their Code of Conduct to working and leading together in:

Making informed, balanced and objective decisions

Acting honestly

Taking responsible financial decisions

Ensuring good governance

Being inclusive in their activities and sharing information with others

Learning from each other

Respecting each other's undertakings

Being respectful in their interactions with others

Communicating clearly about decisions that have been made

Fulfilling their undertakings and being clear when this is not possible

Working positively with the media to ensure community members are provided with accurate information

Themes

Planning for Growth

Liveability

Productivity

Sustainability

Good Governance and Decision-Making

ORDINARY MEETING WEDNESDAY 10 JULY 2013

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

ITEM PRECIS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 5

PRAYER 5

CODE OF CONDUCT 5

PRESENT 5

APOLOGIES 5

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6

CR LYONS' REPORT 6

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9

1.1 Petition: Request for Traffic Lights for Olympic Parade

and Mackenzie Street West, Kangaroo Flat

9

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 10

2.1 61 Jobs Gully Road, Eaglehawk 3556 - Subdivision of

Land into 9 Lots and Common Property and the Removal

of Native Vegetation

10

2.2 Lot 1 Bryden Road, Harcourt North 3453 - 2 Lot Re-

Subdivision of Land

25

2.3 17-27 Goddards Lane, East Bendigo 3550 - Re-Subdivide

Land into 2 Lots

37

2.4 23 Philpot Street, Long Gully 3550 - 2 Lot Subdivision and

Construction of a Dwelling

48

2.5 Landscape Assessment Project - Adoption of the

Landscape Assessment Report for Big Hill and

Mandurang Valley

58

2.6 Bendigo Botanic Gardens - Garden for the Future

Implementation

74

2.7 Parking In The View Street Precinct 78

3. LIVEABILITY 84

3.1 Revised Axedale Community Plan 2013-2016 84

3.2 Community Policing Vehicle 88

4. PRODUCTIVITY 93

5. SUSTAINABILITY 94

5.1 Fortuna - Council Position on the Heritage Management

Plan

94

5.2 Natural Environment Advisory Committee - Community

Member Appointments

119

6. GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DECISION MAKING 122

6.1 Contracts Awarded Under Delegation 122

6.2 Record of Assemblies 124

7. URGENT BUSINESS 135

8. NOTICES OF MOTION 135

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 135

10. MAYOR'S REPORT 135

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 135

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 135

12.1 Contractual Matter 135

____________________________

CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

CODE OF CONDUCT

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the conduct of Public Question Time.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Public Question Time Guidelines Public Question Time – Purpose Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Council’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System. By the time planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through an extensive process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, in most instances mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the process there are many opportunities for the people to ask questions. Therefore, no questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. Public Question Time – Where, When And Who The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of Greater Bendigo City Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo. The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions. Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete response can be provided. Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question will be answered by the Mayor or CEO, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council Officers.


PAGE 6

Acceptance of Questions Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name, and address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for making of statements or other comments. Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting. 1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be

permitted at the discretion of the Mayor. 2. In the event that the same or similar question is raised by more than one person, an

answer may be given as a combined response. 3. In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered,

questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate. 4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:

Prosecution, summonses or any other litigation;

Most appropriately addressed by other means;

Vague, irrelevant, insulting or improper, defamatory;

Answer likely to compromise his / her position;

Confidential, commercial-in-confidence. 5. Each individual whose registration form has been accepted or declined will be

advised by the Friday of the week prior to the scheduled meeting. 6. In the event of a registration form being declined the registration form will be

circulated to the Mayor or Councillors for information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.

CR LYONS' REPORT


PAGE 7

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest must be declared prior to debate on specific items within the agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting. Declaration of indirect interests must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest must still be declared at the meeting), i.e. (a) direct financial interest (b) indirect interest by close association (c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest (d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties (e) indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken. Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.


PAGE 8

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 29 June, 2013 and the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 3 July, 2013. The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 29 June, 2013 at 6:00pm.

Planning Scheme Amendment C189 - Apply Heritage Overlays to 52 Edward Street and 72 Queen Street, Bendigo and 27 Pallett Street, Golden Square - Consider Submissions

Guys Hill Road, Bakers Lane and Tannery Lane, Strathfieldsaye - Approval of a Development Plan and Staged Subdivision of Land into 45 Lots and Removal of Native Vegetation

70 Barkly Street, Bendigo - Re-Subdivision of Land, Demolition of Outbuildings and Fence, Development of Dwelling, Carport, Fences and Construction of Works (Earthworks and Retaining Walls)

14 Renwick Street, Golden Square - 12 Lot Subdivision and Construction of 6 Dwellings

5 Ellis Street, Flora Hill - Subdivision of Land into Two Lots and Construction of Two Dwellings - 5 Ellis Street, Flora Hill

64 Phillis Street, Kangaroo Flat - Subdivision of the Land into 7 Lots

123 Symonds Street, Golden Square - 2 Lot Subdivision of Land

Draft City of Greater Bendigo Urban Stormwater Management Plan 2013-2106

2013-2017 Council Plan - Final Version for Adoption

Domestic Animal Management Plan

Record of Assemblies

Procurement Policy Review

Bendigo Stadium Loan Borrowings

Notice of Motion: Infrastructure and General Works

Notice of Motion: Synthetic Cannabis in Bendigo

Confidential Section 89 Report - Contractual Matter

The following item was considered at the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 3 July, 2013 at 6:00pm.

Presentation of the Independent Review of the City of Greater Bendigo Report The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 29 June, 2013 and the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 3 July, 2013, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.


PAGE 9

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

1.1 PETITION: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR OLYMPIC PARADE AND MACKENZIE STREET WEST, KANGAROO FLAT

Petitions and joint letters with ten (10) or more signatures are included in the agenda or tabled at the meeting, unless there is a separate legal process for considering the petition or joint letter, as there is for planning submissions or submissions following public notices (Section 223 LGA)]. A petition has been received requesting the installation of traffic lights at the corner of Olympic Parade and Mackenzie Street West, Kangaroo Flat, as outlined below: "We the undersigned support the petition of Crusoe College in relation to the

installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Olympic Parade and Mackenzie Street".

Signatures - 144

RECOMMENDATION

That the petition be received and a response be prepared within two meetings.

Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 10

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH

2.1 61 JOBS GULLY ROAD, EAGLEHAWK 3556 - SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 9 LOTS AND COMMON PROPERTY AND THE REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Document Information

Author Stephen Wainwright, Coordinator Subdivisions Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This permit application concerns a proposal to subdivide the land at 61 Jobs Gully Road, Eaglehawk, into nine residential lots. The proposed subdivision takes advantage of a large under-utilised residential property. The proportions of the site are relatively long and narrow and there is generous space behind the existing dwelling on the site which is suitable for some sort of re-development. The application has been revised on several occasions in an effort to address the concerns of some local residents who have objected to the proposal. The original lot yield of eleven lots has been reduced to nine lots and other design features have been incorporated into the subdivision, including a 3m buffer zone to protect adjoining homes in Coulson Street. Six of the original objections have been withdrawn as a result of the amended application. A total of six parties remain opposed to the subdivision because of concerns about the proposed lot density and amenity impacts. It is considered that the revised nine lot subdivision layout has proper regard to the site context. The proposed lot sizes will provide a suitable transition between older properties in the vicinity of the site and more recent infill developments. The lot density will also not cause any significant loss of amenity for those properties that directly abut the site. For these reasons it is recommended that a permit be granted.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2013)

Planning for Growth

Our quality of life is maintained as our City's population and economy grows.

Productivity

A diverse, strong and growing economy supports community resilience.


PAGE 11

Report

Application No: DS/864/2012

Application Date: 15 November 2012

Applicant: Tomkinson Group

Land: 61 Jobs Gully Road, EAGLEHAWK

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: Nil

Subject Site and Surrounds

The site and its surrounds is described by the applicant thus:

"The subject site is known as 61 Jobs Gully Road Eaglehawk. The site contains a single allotment known as Lot on LP 116706. The site contains a total area of approximately 6,071m2 and is rectangular in shape. The site presents a 30.18m frontage to Jobs Gully Road at the southern boundary of the site. The eastern and western boundaries of the site, each 201.17m in length, abut private land containing residential dwellings. The northern boundary of the site abuts residential land recently approved for residential development. The site contains a single storey dwelling of brick construction. The dwelling is found in the southern half of the site, setback approximately 25m from the Jobs Gully Road frontage boundary. To the rear of the dwelling are a number of small outbuildings and a vegetable garden, the remainder of the site is vacant. The northern half of the property contains scattered Box Gum (EVC 61) trees with negligible understorey vegetation. The remainder of the site is otherwise cleared. The site exhibits relatively flat topography with a very slight fall exhibited towards the southern boundary. The site does not contain any ridges, slopes or other topographic features. No areas of saline discharge or areas of existing erosion have been located on site."


PAGE 12

Figure 1: A location map showing the site. The objectors' properties are marked with a solid star. Withdrawn objections are from properties marked with an opaque star.

Proposal

Under the revised plan (the Revision E plan) it is proposed to subdivide the site into 9 residential lots. The lots will be serviced by a 5.5m wide common property driveway off Jobs Gully Road that will extend along the east boundary of the site. The proposed lots will front onto this driveway. The existing dwelling on the site will be retained and accommodated within Lot 10 which will be 1227m2. The remaining lots, Lots 1 to 9, will be vacant and each will be suitable for a single dwelling. These lots will be located behind the existing dwelling on the site which is set back 25m from Jobs Gully Road. Lots 1-9 will all be greater than 400m2 with the majority being around 430m2. Indicative building envelopes have been prepared for these lots. The envelopes show 4.9m (maximum) setbacks from the common driveway and also side setbacks. A 3m wide building exclusion zone, incorporating a 1m screen planting buffer, is proposed along the west boundary of Lots 1-9. The building exclusion zone will abut the rear yards of properties in Coulson Street. The common property driveway has been designed to enable an emergency vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction. The driveway will include two passing bays and a landscape buffer. Vegetation on the site will be cleared as part of the subdivision.


PAGE 13

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the Residential 1 Zone and is not covered by any overlays. The proposed subdivision of the site and the removal of native vegetation triggers the need for a permit pursuant to the zone provisions and clause 52.17-2 (native vegetation) in the planning scheme. The following clauses in the planning scheme are particularly relevant to the application. State Planning Policy Framework Regional development (clause 11.05). Biodiversity (clause 12.01). Urban environment (clause 15.01). Sustainable development (clause 15.02). Residential development (clause 16.01). Movement networks (clause 18.02). Development infrastructure (clause 19.03). Municipal Strategic Statement Municipal profile (clause 21.01). Key issues and influences (clause 21.02). Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03). Strategic directions (clause 21.04). Settlement (clause 21.05). Housing (clause 21.06). Reference documents (clause 21.10). Local Planning Policies Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04). Other Provisions Residential 1 Zone (clause 32.01). Native vegetation (clause 52.17). Residential subdivision (clause 56). Decision guidelines (clause 65). Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).

Consultation/Communication

Referrals The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Coliban Water No objection subject to conditions

Powercor No objection subject to conditions

Telstra No objection subject to conditions

Tenix No objection subject to conditions


PAGE 14

Referral Comment

DEPI (formerly DSE) No objection subject to conditions

Development Engineer (internal) No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification The application was advertised to the public on two occasions. The first period of advertising related to an original proposal for an eleven lot subdivision. The original application attracted a total of eleven objections. A consultation meeting involving the permit applicant and the objectors was held following the advertising period. As a result of the consultation meeting the application was revised to a ten lot subdivision and this amended application was re-advertised. No new objections were received to the amended application. However six objections were withdrawn. The five remaining original objections are considered by law to be objections to the amended application notwithstanding that the objectors made no submission on the revised plan. One additional objection was also received late in the assessment process bringing the total number of objections to six. The developer held an on-site meeting with the objectors which was attended by several councillors as well. The meeting helped to clarify the issues of concern to the objectors. As a result of the meeting the application was amended again to further reduce the density of the proposed subdivision. The current revised plan envisages a nine lot subdivision of the site. The six current objections primarily centre upon the density of the proposed subdivision and its impact on the neighbourhood character and local amenity. There are also issues about traffic and loss of native vegetation. The grounds of objection are discussed later in this report.

Planning Assessment

The density of the proposed subdivision The site had a permit for a six lot subdivision which was approved in 2010. The plans showed lot sizes down to 650m2. This previous plan was essentially a less dense version of the current proposal, with lots arranged alongside a common property driveway extending along the east boundary of the site. The previous proposal attracted no objections at the time. The main ground of objection to the current proposal centres upon the density of the development. The six objectors believe that the plan contains too many lots. The proposed lot density is seen as not in keeping with the neighbourhood character.


PAGE 15

The applicant has sought to address the issue of development density in two significant ways. First, they have amended their plan to reduce the number of lots from eleven to nine lots. Second, other changes have been made to the plan, namely: (1) a 3m wide building exclusion zone is shown along the rear boundary of each new vacant lot as a means of separating new built form from adjoining properties, (2) a 1m wide planting 'screen' is included within the building exclusion zone, and (3) indicative building envelopes have been prepared for each new vacant lot showing the likely house designs that would result from the subdivision. Some objectors have chosen to withdraw their objection on the basis of these amendments. Turning to the key question then: does the proposed nine lot subdivision respect the neighbourhood character? The site and its context have several unusual features that make it difficult to settle upon a cohesive understanding of the neighbourhood character. Foremost of these irregularities is the long, narrow shape of the site. The site has only a 30m wide frontage but is over 200m in depth. This is in contrast to many other lots in the immediate area which have more even proportions. Indeed, almost all the lots west of Coulson Street (which intersects with Jobs Gully Road) are conventional suburban lots of roughly standard proportions, ie. 18m wide x 30m depth. Medium density housing is found immediate north of the site in Curtain Street, an area known as the Neangar Sanctuary estate. While this estate does abut the site it has only a modest relationship to the site from a neighbourhood character perspective. It is considered that the streetscapes of Jobs Gully Road, and to a lesser extent Coulson Street, are more important in defining the site context. It is clear that the area once accommodated mostly large homes on semi-rural lots. This typology has given way to suburban forms of subdivision. Coulson Street is an example of the former typology, the Neangar Sanctuary estate is an example of the latter. The trend towards in-fill housing is set to continue. The land to the east of the site, for example, has approval for 18 lots with lot sizes around 600m2. Other infill developments are sure to follow on the other large properties to the east of the site. It therefore follows that redevelopment of the subject site for some sort of denser housing is broadly consistent with the pattern of subdivision in the area. The more specific question to resolve is whether lot sizes of around 430m2, as shown on the proposed plan of subdivision, are not too small having regard to the site context. The lot density adopted by the proposed subdivision is considered to be the right match for the area. To start with the lots will be partially concealed from many viewing points within the streetscape of Jobs Gully Road (see Figure 2). In instances where it will be possible to discern the new lots they will be viewed as being comparable with the range of other infill development in the area, most of which is around 500m2. In this context the subdivision will result in a suitable transition between the existing older housing typology and a more intensive pattern of settlement that is emerging in the area.


PAGE 16

Figure 2: A view north towards the site from Jobs Gully Road.

Amenity impacts The site has a significant number of abuttals to other residences, most of which address Coulson Street. Of the properties in Coulson Street, six of them have backyards that adjoin the site. The Coulson Street properties are quite deep, with their dwellings set back between 40m and 65m from the shared boundary. There are also shrubs and canopy trees in their backyards. The applicant argues that the depth of these backyards and the screening effect caused by existing vegetation will ameliorate the amenity impact of the subdivision upon the Coulson Street properties. They also point out the benefits created by the proposed setbacks and landscape buffer strip that will be features of the subdivision layout. According to the applicant Lots 1-9 will be "largely unsighted from neighbouring dwellings and the regularly used space in their backyards".


PAGE 17

Figure 3: The common boundary between the site and the Coulson Street properties

The applicant perhaps over-states their case by suggesting that Lots 1-9 will be mostly concealed from the Coulson Street properties. Nonetheless the proposed lots will be large enough to allow spacing of about 6m to be achieved between the new houses thus creating an outlook for the neighbours that will not be excessively bulky. The proposed 3m wide building exclusion zone and plantings will also help to soften the likely visual bulk of the new houses. This is considered acceptable from a visual amenity perspective. With respect to other siting and amenity considerations it is considered that the lots are suitably designed to accommodate a single dwelling with convenient and efficient access available from the proposed driveway off Jobs Gully Road. The lots will be fully serviced and will enjoy the locational advantages of being close to services and public facilities.


PAGE 18

Native vegetation All vegetation on the site will be lost, or deemed to be lost, as a result of the proposed subdivision. The vegetation losses are proposed to be offset, an approach that is supported by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (formerly DSE). The vegetation clearing is considered acceptable in this case because: (1) the vegetation is only of low conservation significance, (2) the vegetation lacks any meaningful linkages to other patches of vegetation, ie. the site doesn't serve as a 'biolink', and (3) the vegetation isn't habitat for any endangered species.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above it is considered that the permit application meets the requirements of the planning scheme and on this basis a permit should be granted.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit subject to conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objections

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to subdivide the land at 61 Jobs Gully Road, Eaglehawk into 10 lots and remove native vegetation subject to the following conditions: 1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSED

The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the Revision E plans submitted with the application.

2. LAYOUT MUST NOT BE ALTERED The layout of the subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

3. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision the owner of the land must pay to the responsible authority a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of all the land in the subdivision.


PAGE 19

4. DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision the common property driveway shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed, properly formed, drained and surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5. LANDSCAPE PLAN Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision a landscape plan for the proposed landscape buffer along the west boundary of the site must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit.

6. COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision, or at an alternative time agree to by the responsible authority, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

7. BUILDING ENVELOPES The plan of subdivision must include a building envelope restriction in accordance with the endorsed plan. No building may be constructed inside the building exclusion zone shown on the endorsed plan.

8. DETAILED DRAINAGE Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include: (a) Direction of stormwater run-off. (b) A point of discharge for each lot. (c) Independent drainage for each lot.

9. STORMWATER DETENTION Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision the developer must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Allowable discharge: Q5 = 37 l/s. The responsible authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the acceptance of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new drainage infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land. Such amount is assessed as $10000 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

10. STORMWATER QUALITY Before the subdivision starts the developer must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the Best Practice Environmental Guidelines storm water quality (Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999) in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


PAGE 20

The responsible authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the treatment of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new stormwater treatment infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land or its immediate catchment. Such amount is assessed as $4100 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

11. DRAINAGE WORKS Prior to the issue of the statement of compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority.

12. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT If a stormwater detention system or a water quality treatment system is installed on the site, the owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 before a statement of compliance is issued. The agreement must provide for the following: (a) All systems must be designed by a qualified engineer and must be approved

by the responsible authority before construction. (b) All systems must be installed before, or concurrently with, the development

of a building on the site. (c) All systems must be completed before they are connected to Council's

drainage system. (d) All systems must be maintained by the owner and must not be modified

without the written approval of the responsible authority. (e) The owner must allow authorised Council officers to inspect any system on

the site from time to time. (f) The owner must pay all costs associated with the construction and

maintenance of any system on the site.

13. PUBLIC ASSETS Before the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb and channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of works the owner or applicant must submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for approval by the responsible authority. The plan must include: (a) A site specific plan showing proposed erosion and sedimentation control

works. (b) Techniques and intervention levels to prevent a dust nuisance.


PAGE 21

(c) Techniques to prevent mud and dirt being transported from the site to adjacent streets.

(d) The protection measures taken to preserve any vegetation identified for retention.

During construction of works associated with the subdivision, the must employ and provide the protection methods contained in the CMP to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Environment Protection Agency.

15. COLIBAN WATER (a) The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage services to

each of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water’s specifications.

(b) All Coliban Water assets within the subdivision, both existing and proposed, are to be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation.

16. POWERCOR

(a) The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 shall be referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

(b) The applicant shall: Provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor’s requirements and standards, including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor (A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required). In the event that a supply is not provided the applicant shall provide a written undertaking to Powercor Australia Ltd that prospective purchasers will be so informed.

(c) The applicant shall: Where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. The applicant shall arrange compliance through a Registered Electrical Contractor.

(d) The applicant shall: Provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification, which shows any amendments which have been required.

(e) Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations.

(f) Any construction work must comply with the Officer of the Chief Electrical Inspector No Go Zone rules.

17. TENIX

The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SP AusNet (Gas) in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.


PAGE 22

ALTERNATE MOTION Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to Refuse to Grant a Permit for the subdivision of the land and removal of native vegetation at 61 Jobs Gully Road Eaglehawk for the following reasons: 1. The proposed lot density is excessive having regard to the character of the

neighbourhood and the amenity conditions of the residential properties that adjoin the site.


PAGE 23


PAGE 24


PAGE 25

2.2 LOT 1 BRYDEN ROAD, HARCOURT NORTH 3453 - 2 LOT RE-SUBDIVISION OF LAND


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This application seeks approval for a two lot subdivision at Lot 1 Bryden Road, Harcourt North. One neighbour has objected to the subdivision principally because of concerns relating to the proposed increase in lots in a rural area. Neither party wanted to participate in a consultation meeting. The central issues in relation to the permit application is whether the re-subdivision of two lots is compatible with an environmentally sensitive rural area and that Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot size of 40 ha in the Rural Conservation Zone. The site is currently managed in accordance with an approved Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The approval of this re-subdivision will mean that the EMP will not form part of a permit, thus will result in a poorer outcome for the site. The site is zoned for rural conservation purposes. It is considered that the subdivision does not meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme and a permit should not be granted.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity


Background

A planning permit was issued in 2009 for a two lot subdivision, use and development of Lot 2 for a dwelling, earthworks to construct a dam on this site. The size of the approved lots (44.48 and 52.24 ha) was slightly greater than the minimum 40 ha for this area.


PAGE 26

At the time the site was affected by the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1 (DPO1), which required all future development on the site to be undertaken in accordance with an endorsed Environmental Management Plan. Since the issue of this permit, the DPO1 control has been removed from the land.

Report


Application Date: 6 February 2013

Applicant: Geoff Shaw & Associates Pty Ltd

Land: Lot 1 Bryden Road, HARCOURT NORTH

Zoning: Rural Conservation Zone

Overlays: Erosion Management Overlay (EMO) Environmental Significance Overlay 2 (ESO2 - Groundwater Recharge Protection Area)


The site consists of two land parcels, located on the western side of Bryden Road, with an area of 96.72 hectares. The site is comprised of gentle alluvial creek flats to gentle crests and steep slopes of granitic soils and large boulders. There are two depressions located in the centre of the site, which join together and drain to the east. The land is mostly cleared, with remnant eucalypts scattered across the landscape. The land is currently use for grazing cattle and sheep. The land is accessed from Bryden Road, via two separate gateways and a secondary access via Ford Road. Bryden Road is an unsealed road. There is one dam on the property, which provides water for stock purposes. The pattern of development surrounding the subject site is mixed. There are seven properties of approximately 10 hectares each located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. These properties each have a dwelling and are used for rural living purposes. Two properties with an area of approximately 35 hectares, each with a dwelling, are located to the west of the site. A larger property, comprising of multiple parcels is located to the north of the site.


PAGE 27

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector’s property is marked with a star.

Proposal

The applicant seeks approval for the re-subdivision of the two lots that comprise the site. Lot 1 will have an area of 87.5 hectares, while the area of Lot 2 will be 9.24 hectares. It is proposed to create one large lot, which will be used for agricultural pursuits, including grazing of cattle and sheep, and one small lot suitable for the construction of a future dwelling.


The site is in the Rural Conservation Zone and is partially affected by the Erosion Management Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay 2 (Groundwater Recharge Protection Area). A permit is required to subdivide land pursuant to the zone and Erosion Management Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay 2. The following provisions of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application: State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05).

Floodplains (clause 13.02).

Soil degradation (clause 13.03).

Urban environment (clause 15.01).

Sustainable development (clause 15.02).

Integrated transport (clause 18.01).

Movement networks (clause 18.02).


PAGE 28

Municipal Strategic Statement:

Municipal profile (clause 21.01).

Key issues and influences (clause 21.02).

Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03).

Strategic directions (clause 21.04).

Settlement (clause 21.05).

Housing (clause 21.06).

Environment (clause 21.08).

Infrastructure (clause 21.09).

Reference documents (clause 21.10). Local Planning Policies:

Rural subdivision policy (clause 22.03).

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04). Other relevant provisions:

Decision guidelines (clause 65).

Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


Referrals The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Environmental Health Unit No objection subject to the inclusion of a notation on the permit.

Drainage No objection, with no conditions.

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising, one objection was received, with the grounds of objection being that the re-subdivision is creating an additional lot, which is not suitable in a rural area. A consultation meeting was not conducted, as neither party wished to participate.


PAGE 29

Planning Assessment

There are two key issues to this application are:

1. How the proposed re-subdivision of lots accords with the purposes of the Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) and the Erosion Management Overlay (EMO).

2. Is the proposed re-subdivision a better outcome for the land, than the configurement of the existing lots?

Rural Conservation Zone The land in this area is zoned for Rural Conservation purposes. The purpose of the RCZ is to encourage sustainable land management and land practices for the use and development of land and for the operation of agricultural pursuits. The main objective of the minimum lot size in this zone is to set achievable sustainable land management and land capability outcomes for rural land. In general terms the RCZ specifies that the minimum lot size is 40 hectares. The planning scheme does provide limited exemptions to the minimum lot size of 40 hectares, where the subdivision is the re-subdivision of existing lots, the number of lots is not increased, and the number of dwellings that the land could be used for does not increase. The proposed re-subdivision does meet the criteria of the first two exemptions, but not the third. The site currently consists of two lots with areas of 44.48 and 52.24 hectares. The owner wishes to change the common boundary, so as to create one smaller lot, suitable for a dwelling. The balance of the site creates a large lot suitable for the grazing of stock. The applicant has provided no valid reason for the re-subdivision of lots. The question may be asked, will the proposed changes in the size of the lots create a better outcome than what is now existing? The site is located in an area where the size of land parcels generally do not meet the 40 ha minimum lot size. These lots were created in accordance with the planning controls of the Strathfieldsaye Planning Scheme, prior to 1994. Seven of the lots abutting the southern boundary of the site have lot sizes under 9.8 ha and are now effectively used for rural living purposes. According to the Strathfieldsaye Planning Scheme, land to the north of the site was zoned Rural Farmlet, which had a minimum lot size of 8 ha. This resulted in a large property to the north of the site being divided into a number of parcels which range in area from 8 ha – 33 ha. This land is currently used for grazing purposes. Even though a precedent has been set for smaller lots in the surrounding area, it does not mean that current or future subdivisions with lots less than 40 ha should be approved. In contrast to the Strathfieldsaye Planning Scheme, the current Planning Scheme has identified the site and surrounding area to be sustainably challenged, and it is important that Council protects the land appropriately. The area of the current lots is functional and in keeping with the minimum lot size of 40 ha. At the time these current lots were approved, the land was affected by the Development Plan Overlay 1 (Environmental Management Plan). Currently all development on the two lots is undertaken in accordance with an approved Environmental Management Plan, including the fencing of gullies, planting areas of native vegetation and weed control.


PAGE 30

In recent times, the DPO1 has been removed from the area as part of Amendment C109 as it was determined to be an inappropriate use of the DPO. Prior to the Amendment, an Environmental Management Plan was required to be endorsed with an approved permit. An EMP is no longer required to be endorsed. Should the proposed lots be approved, there would be no mechanism available to ensure that the lots are managed in a sustainable manner. Environment Management Plans are now required to be submitted when an application for a planning permit for a house is made. Erosion Management Overlay The purpose of the EMO is to protect areas prone to erosion, landslip or other land degradation processes by minimizing land disturbance and inappropriate development. It is accepted that the site, in parts, is susceptible to poor pasture quality and some gully erosion and landslip, due to the fragile nature of the granitic soil structure. This means that any future development and the operation of agricultural activities should be undertaken with due care to protect existing pasture, reduce the risk of further soil erosion and avoid the unnecessary removal of native vegetation. In response to this, the proposed subdivision could compromise the existing conditions of the site. It is difficult to pre-empt the future management of any site, but in this case it is acknowledged that the proposed change in the area of the lots may not achieve the same sustainable outcomes as before. In the long-term view, Lot 1, being 87.5 hectares is potentially able to be further subdivided in the future, which would allow further development on the site. This would result in greater land disturbance, including further eroded areas and reduced pastures. As explained earlier, the current lots are managed in accordance with an approved EMP, which provides sound sustainable guidance. Overall, the proposed re-subdivision of existing lots is not in keeping with the purposes of the RCZ and EMO. The proposed subdivision has the capacity to undermine Council policy through the further fragmentation of land in the area. It is considered that the configurement of the existing lots is a far better outcome for the site, especially knowing that all development is managed in accordance with the recommendations of the endorsed Environmental Management Plan. Wastewater Reticulated sewerage is not able to be connected to the site. The City’s Environmental Health Unit concluded that the site was generally suitable for the installation of an on-site effluent disposal system to each lot. Response to Objection The objector is concerned that the proposal is for a three lot subdivision. The objector believes an increase in lots is not suitable in this rural area. There is no additional lot being created. The common boundary is being altered to provide one large lot and one small lot. Although there is no increase in the number of lots, the re-subdivision of the lots is considered not to meet the Planning Scheme requirements.


PAGE 31

Conclusion

It is considered that the application to re-subdivide land into two lots at Lot Bryden Road, Harcourt North should not be supported on the grounds that the proposed size of Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot size of 40 hectares and subsequently does not meet the requirements of the Rural Conservation Zone. The creation of Lot 2, being well under size does not provide a better planning outcome for the site. Options Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objection.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Refusal to Grant a Permit for a two lot re-subdivision at Lot 1 Bryden Road, Harcourt North for the following reasons:

The proposed size of Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot size of 40 hectares and subsequently does not meet the requirements of the Rural Conservation Zone.

The proposed layout of the lots does not present a better planning outcome for the site.

ALTERNATE MOTION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision at Lot 1 Bryden Road, Harcourt North subject to the following conditions:

1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSED The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application.

2. LAYOUT PLANS The subdivision, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

3. PROVISION OF SERVICES The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of electricity services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities’ requirements and relevant legislation at the time.


PAGE 32

4. EASEMENTS All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services and roads must be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.

5. REFERRAL OF PLAN The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with section 8 of that Act.

6. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT Prior to the issue of statement of compliance, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Such agreement must covenant that: (a) The management of Lot 1 must be in accordance with the endorsed

Environmental Management Plan prepared by PL Williamson, dated October 2012.

(b) Lot 2 may not be further subdivided.

7. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (a) The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

(b) Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

8. EXPIRY OF THE PERMIT

The permit will expire if: (a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within 2 years from the date of this

permit; or (b) The registration of the subdivision is not completed within 5 years from the

date of certification of the plan of subdivision. The responsible authority may extend the time for certification of a plan if a request


PAGE 33

is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

NOTE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Before a building permit is issued for any works at the proposed new lots, a septic tank permit to install must be issued by the responsible authority.


PAGE 34


PAGE 35

Plan showing proposed plan of subdivision


PAGE 36

Plan showing the boundaries of the existing lots


PAGE 37

2.3 17-27 GODDARDS LANE, EAST BENDIGO 3550 - RE-SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 2 LOTS


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This application seeks the approval of a Development Plan and subsequent issue of a permit to re-subdivide the land at 17 – 27 Goddards Lane, East Bendigo into 2 lots. There were no objections to the application. Central to an assessment of the application is that the subdivision will be creating lots that are not in accordance with Local Planning Policies. It is considered that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay 4 in relation to minimum lot size. This report recommends that Council oppose the approval of a Development Plan and that no permit be granted.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Report



Applicant: Colin M Nankervis Consulting Engineers

Land: 17-27 Goddards Lane, EAST BENDIGO 3550

Zoning: Low Density Residential Zone

Overlays: Development Plan Overlay 4


PAGE 38


The site is located within a low density residential area on the northern side of Goddards Lane in East Bendigo. The vacant site is comprised of two land parcels that are in the same ownership. However, the 0.29 ha, triangular lot is not able to be accessed from a road. The larger lot has an area of 1.2 ha. A few medium to large native trees are scattered across the rear of the site. There are a number of native trees scattered along the road reserve. Goddards Lane is a well-formed gravel road. A redundant water race which is located on a separate parcel in the ownership of Coliban Water, traverses the site in a northerly direction from Goddards Lane. Residential properties adjoin the site to the south, east and west, while a poultry breeder farm abuts the site to the north. Many of the lots in the area are divided into small paddocks which have small sheds suitable for horses to shelter in, reflecting the equine focus of the area. The area of these lots range between 0.9 ha and 2.3 ha and are not connected to reticulated sewerage. In contrast, the area of lots further to the south and south west of the site tend to be approximately 0.4 ha and are connected to reticulated sewerage. The site is located approximately 4.7 kilometres from the Bendigo CBD. The site is situated 100 metres west of the Bendigo Airport and 400 metres south of the Bendigo Racecourse. The nearest bus service to and from the CBD is available in Pipers Road in the Mayfair Industrial Estate.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site


PAGE 39

Proposal

The applicant seeks approval of a Development Plan to re-subdivide the land into 2 lots, with both lots being 0.76 ha. Each new lot could be developed for a single dwelling without further planning approval. Reticulated water, power and telecommunications can be connected to both lots. Access to the lots will be from Goddards Lane. Any new dwellings will have to use septic tank systems, as the land is not serviced with reticulated sewerage.


The site is in the Low Density Residential Zone and is wholly affected by Schedule 4 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO 4). A permit is required to subdivide land in this zone. The DPO dictates that there is a minimum lot size of one hectare in this area. However, smaller lots can be approved if it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the lots can be serviced, remnant vegetation is retained and the lot sizes are compatible with lot sizes in the area. A permit must not be granted to subdivide land, until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The following provisions of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application: State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05).

Floodplains (clause 13.02).

Soil degradation (clause 13.03).

Urban environment (clause 15.01).

Sustainable development (clause 15.02).

Integrated transport (clause 18.01).

Movement networks (clause 18.02). Municipal Strategic Statement:

Municipal profile (clause 21.01).

Key issues and influences (clause 21.02).

Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03).

Strategic directions (clause 21.04).

Settlement (clause 21.05).

Housing (clause 21.06).

Environment (clause 21.08).

Infrastructure (clause 21.09).

Reference documents (clause 21.10). Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04). Other relevant provisions:

Decision guidelines (clause 65).

Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


PAGE 40



Referral Comment

Drainage No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health No objection, subject to inclusion of notation on the permit.

Public Notification The application was informally advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. There were no submissions received.

Planning Assessment

The application involves the re-subdivision of two existing lots. Currently, the lots are configured in an irregular manner, with the triangular shaped lot being landlocked. Strategic Policies There are two planning policies most pertinent to this application: 1. The role of the Urban Growth Boundary is to better manage the City’s outward

growth by encouraging development into designated growth areas away from areas which Council wants to protect.

2. The East Bendigo Structure Plan refers to the area north of Goddards Lane as having one hectare lots suitable for horse agistment facilities that support the activities of the Bendigo Racecourse.

The key issue to this application is whether the creation of lots of 0.76 ha, which are well below the minimum lot size of one hectare, fit with the current planning policies. Although the land is zoned low density residential, its proximity to the racecourse has influenced a pattern of development more suited to rural living type activities. It is important that these existing activities are encouraged in a specified area, thus reducing the problem of conflicting interests with dwellings constructed on smaller lots. The existing site area makes it suitable for the keeping and training of horses in an established equine precinct of Bendigo. Subdivision of the site will make it too small for equine activities.


PAGE 41

Planning Controls The site is affected by the Schedule 4 of the Development Plan Overlay. This schedule applies to low density land with further development potential, which specifies a minimum lot size in particular areas and states that there is a range of requirements that must be considered before approving a development plan. In this case the site is required to meet the minimum lot size of one hectare, unless it can be demonstrated that the lots can be appropriately serviced, remnant vegetation can be retained and the proposed lot size is compatible with the general character of the area. The applicant provided limited information on how the proposed subdivision would satisfy the requirements of the DPO, including identifying appropriate lot sizes in subdivisions, based on strategic criteria including the relationship of the land to the existing uses and how the subdivision will impact on the abutting properties and surrounding area. As a result of the current nature of uses in the area, the subdivision could create lots only suitable for residential use and therefore provide constraints on existing and future pursuits, including the nearby poultry breeder farm and lots used for the keeping and training of horses. In particular, there is potential for issues of amenity, including noise and odour to occur. Wastewater Services Currently, the area west of McDowall Road, including the site cannot be connected to reticulated sewerage and Coliban Water has no interest in providing reticulated sewerage along Goddards Lane. These properties rely on septic tank systems to manage the retention of wastewater onsite. The site is located approximately 200 metres east of the sewer line in McDowalls Road. It would be unfair to expect these property owners to connect into the sewer system, due to the prohibitive costs. The applicant was required to provide a Land Capability Assessment with the application because the site is not connected to reticulated sewerage. The LCA is required because it is an important tool in assessing whether the site has an acceptable capability for sustainable, on-site wastewater management. The City of Greater Bendigo’s Environmental Health Officer concurred with the conclusion stated in the submitted Land Capability Assessment that both proposed lots were capable of retaining wastewater within the lot boundaries. In the short term, the management of septic tank systems on the lots may be satisfactory. However, in the long term, it is not known how the land will continue to sustain these systems. Other undersized lots in the vicinity have been connected to reticulated sewerage. Neighbourhood Character The area around Goddards Lane comprises of lots that range between 0.9 ha and 2.3 ha, each with a large dwelling and associated shedding, including stables and small horse shelters. The lane is constructed of gravel, with a number of native trees located along both road reserves. The wide frontages of the lots reflect a sense of spaciousness in a semi-rural setting


PAGE 42

It is considered that the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character for the following reasons:

The size of both lots, being 0.76 ha, is considerably smaller than the one hectare minimum in this area. The lots located along Goddards Lane are all in excess of I ha and currently generate a sense of spaciousness in the area. This area is close to an area of small lots to the south east, however these lots are able to be connected to reticulated sewerage.

Any future development on Lot 2 could potentially create a separation of only 18-25 metres to the existing dwelling at 31 Goddards Lane which will detract from the current “semi-rural” setting of the area.

Vegetation A few medium to large native trees are scattered across the rear of the site, while a number of native trees are located along the Goddards Lane. There is to be no removal of vegetation as part of this application, but if it was to be approved these trees should be protected.

Conclusion

It is considered that the application to subdivide land into two lots at 17 -27 Goddards Lane, East Bendigo not be supported on the grounds that the application does not satisfy the DPO4's minimum lot size requirement of 1 ha.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to: A. Refuse the Development Plan prepared by Allied Design Consultants (Proposed

Site Plan) dated 22/2/2012, for a two lot subdivision at 17-27 Goddards Lane, East Bendigo, on the following grounds.

1. The subdivision will create lots that are not compatible with the developing

area known for horse agistment activities that supports the activities of the Bendigo Racecourse.

2. The subdivision is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character due to the small size of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and in this regard it is contrary to the Development Plan Overlay 4.

B. Refuse to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision at 17-27 Goddards Lane, East

Bendigo on the following grounds:


PAGE 43

1. The subdivision will create lots that are not compatible with the developing area known for horse agistment activities that supports the activities of the Bendigo Racecourse.

2. The subdivision is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character due to the small size of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and in this regard it is contrary to the Development Plan Overlay 4.

3. There is no approved Development Plan.

ALTERNATE MOTION Pursuant to Section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to approve a Development Plan and to issue a Permit for a two lot subdivision at 17-27 Goddards Lane, East Bendigo subject to the following conditions: 1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSED

The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application.


3. PROVISION OF SERVICES The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage and electricity services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities’ requirements and relevant legislation at the time.


5. REFERRAL OF PLAN The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with section 8 of that Act.

6. DETAILED DRAINAGE PLANS Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include: (a) Direction of stormwater run-off. (b) A point of discharge for each lot. (c) Independent drainage for each lot.


PAGE 44

7. DRAINAGE WORKS Prior to the issue of the statement of compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority.

8. PUBLIC ASSETS Before the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb and channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

9. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (a) The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

(b) Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

10. EXPIRY OF THE PERMIT

The permit will expire if: (a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within 2 years from the date of this

permit; or (b) The registration of the subdivision is not completed within 5 years from the

date of certification of the plan of subdivision. The responsible authority may extend the time for certification of a plan if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.


PAGE 45

NOTE: CONSENT FOR WORK ON ROAD RESERVES The applicant must comply with: (a) The Road Management Act 2004. (b) Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005. (c) Road Management (General) Regulations 2005. with respect to any requirements to notify the coordinating authority and/or seek consent from the coordinating authority to undertake “works” (as defined in the Act) in, over or under the road reserve. The responsible authority in the inclusion of this condition on this planning permit is not deemed to have been notified of, or to have given consent to undertake any works within the road reserve as proposed in this permit. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Before a building permit is issued for any works at the proposed new lots, a septic tank permit to install must be issued by the responsible authority.


PAGE 46

Attachment 1: Proposed plan of subdivision


PAGE 47

Attachment 2: Aerial view of surrounding area


PAGE 48

2.4 23 PHILPOT STREET, LONG GULLY 3550 - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING


Author Muruga Marday, Town Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This application seeks approval for subdivision of land into two lots and the construction of a dwelling at 23 Philpot Street, Long Gully. This proposal has been assessed as providing a satisfactory outcome in terms of:

Consistency with the relevant Clauses of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Policies on Housing and Residential Character.

The proposal facilitates appropriate infill residential development providing diversity of lot and dwelling choices in an existing urban area consistent with City of Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy.

The proposal has demonstrated compliance with Clause 55 - Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision

One objection was received and a site meeting was organised. The objector advised that some concerns had already been resolved and that his main concerns would be the shared boundary fence line. However, this objection was not able to be resolved. This report recommends the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to grant a Planning Permit.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity



PAGE 49

Report

Application No: DSD/904/2012


Applicant: J A Pisano and V Piel

Land: 23 Philpot Street, LONG GULLY

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: Neighbourhood Character Overlay 1


The subject site is located at 23 Philpot Street, Eaglehawk. The site is almost rectangular in shape with a frontage of 22.48m with Philpot Street and a total area of 675m². The land has a steep slope to the east and is currently occupied by an existing weatherboard dwelling and a carport. The existing dwelling replaced a house destroyed by fire in the 2009 Victorian Bushfires. No planning permit was required for the dwelling under an emergency Bushfire – Replacement Buildings provision in the Planning Scheme. The property is bordered by residential developments except to the west where it adjoins a strip of vacant Crown Land. The housing typology in the area varies from Victorian style weather cottages to 1950’s brick and weatherboard through contemporary developments from 2000 onwards. Some dwellings have a cottage character, derived from the modest scale, small garden setbacks and the open front fences. The residential buildings are of varying architectural styles and sizes. Most of the properties along Philpot Street have low open fences or no fences. Philpot Street is a 10m wide sealed road with concrete kerb and channel on one side of the street. The area is connected to all services.


PAGE 50

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector’s property marked with a star.

Proposal

The proposal involves the subdivision into two lots and construction of a second dwelling at 23 Philpot Street, Long Gully. The property currently contains an existing dwelling. It is proposed to subdivide the site into two lots of 348m² and 328m² respectively and to construct a dwelling consisting of two bedrooms, an open plan kitchen/meals living and utilities. The proposed building materials include weatherboards and colourbond corrugated iron roofing.


The site is within a Residential 1 Zone, the primary purpose of which is to provide for residential development at a range of densities, with a variety of dwellings that respect the neighbourhood character. The site is also affected by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay 1. The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: State Planning Policy Framework

Settlement (Clause 11) Urban Environment (Clause 15.01) Energy and Resource Efficiency (Clause 15.01-2) Sustainable Development (Clause 15.02) Housing (Clause 16)

Municipal Strategic Statement

Key issues and influences (Clause 21.02) Vision - strategic framework (Clause 21.03) Strategic directions (Clause 21.04)


PAGE 51

Settlement (Clause 21.05) Housing (Clause 21.06)

Other Provisions

Two or More Dwellings on a lot (Clause 55) Residential Subdivision (Clause 56) Decision Guidelines (Clause 65)



Referral Comment

Traffic & Design No objection subject to conditions

Drainage No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of a notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising one objection from 3 Cross Street, Long Gully was received, with the grounds of objection being:

Shared boundary fence line;

Height of the back verandah of the existing dwelling which overlooks his property;

Location of existing carport. A consultation meeting was not held as the grounds of objection relate to the existing buildings on the site. The objection is discussed below.

Planning Assessment

General Policy The planning application has been assessed as compliant with all relevant permit triggers and considerations. Both State and Local provisions outline the importance of locating urban growth close to transport corridors and services as well as infrastructure. The subject site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is well serviced. The local provisions in particular, promote new development within this defined area. The development provides for housing diversity and is located close to the CBD. The subdivision and development is well-designed and:


PAGE 52

Respects the neighbourhood character; Improves housing choice; Makes good use of existing infrastructure; Makes good use of energy efficiency for housing.

Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot The principal purpose of Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot is to achieve residential development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or which contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character as well as to encourage residential development that provides reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents and is responsive to the site and the neighbourhood. An assessment of all the objectives of Clause 55 has been undertaken and it is concluded that the purposes above as well as all objectives have been met. Clause 56: Residential Subdivision The principal purpose of Clause 56: Residential subdivision is to create liveable and sustainable neighbourhoods and urban places with character and identity. An assessment of all the objectives of Clause 56 has been undertaken and it is concluded that all objectives have been met. Objector’s Concerns At a site meeting in the presence of the applicant, the objector informed that his main concerns would be his existing fence that has been damaged during the replacement of the dwelling and the construction and levelling of the driveway. He suggested that a new fence be built at the cost of the applicant. He also imparted that he is not against the construction of a second dwelling on the block and that he will withdraw his objection after the putting up of the new fence. After being made aware of the objector’s issue regarding the fence line, the applicant had her property re-surveyed and updated survey plans were submitted to that effect. The applicant advised that she is prepared to reconstruct the fence at shared cost and she will be able to do that after the application is approved. She pointed out that in order to prevent any future damages to the fence, the objector will need to construct a retaining wall because of the topography of the land. She also mentioned that she could start the construction of the new fence prior to the new dwelling. The objection is a civil matter between the two parties and it is not appropriate to withhold planning permission until the fence is constructed.

Conclusion

The proposal will result in an increase in housing supply in the area, whilst not impacting significantly on the character of the area nor causing material detriment to local residents. The proposal demonstrates compliance with all aspects of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.


PAGE 53

The objection relates to damages to the existing fence which is not linked to the proposal. The applicant is willing to construct a new fence at shared cost prior to the construction of the proposed dwelling. As the proposal complies with the relevant policies and Clauses of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit should be issued by Council.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objection

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the subdivision into two lots and construction of a dwelling at 23 Philpot Street, Long Gully subject to the following conditions: 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION

The use and/or development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.


3. PROVISION OF SERVICES The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities’ requirements and relevant legislation at the time.


5. DETAILED DRAINAGE PLANS Prior to the commencement of works, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include:


PAGE 54

(a) direction of stormwater run off (b) a point of discharge for each lot (c) independent drainage for each lot (d) easements as required

6. STORMWATER DETENTION Before the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Allowable discharge rate: Q5 = 5 l/s

OR

The responsible authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the acceptance of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and /or works, whether or not such new drainage infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land. Such amount is assessed as $1000 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

7. DRAINAGE WORKS Prior to connection to the City of Greater Bendigo’s drainage system, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority in Condition 5 above.

8. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT Should the applicant opt to install on-site stormwater detention or water quality treatment, then prior to connection to the City of Greater Bendigo’s drainage system, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for each lot that will contain a treatment or detention facility. Such agreement must covenant that: (a) The on-site treatment system and/or detention system shall be designed by a

qualified engineer and must be approved by the responsible authority prior to construction.

(b) Each on-site treatment system and/or detention system must be constructed either prior to, or currently with, the construction of any dwelling on the specified lots. Each system must be completed prior to connection to the responsible authority’s drainage system.

(c) The owner will maintain each on-site treatment system and/or detention system and not modify without prior written approval from the responsible authority.

(d) The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the responsible authority to inspect the systems at mutually agreed times.

(e) The owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of each on-site treatment and detention system.


PAGE 55

9. CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ASSETS Before the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb & channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

10. CONSENT FOR WORK ON ROAD RESERVES The applicant must comply with: (a) The Road Management Act 2004, (b) Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005, and (c) Road Management (General) Regulations 2005

with respect to any requirements to notify the Coordinating Authority and/or seek consent from the Coordinating Authority to undertake “works” (as defined in the Act) in, over or under the road reserve. The responsible authority in the inclusion of this condition on this planning permit is not deemed to have been notified of, or to have given consent, to undertake any works within the road reserve as proposed in this permit.

NOTE:

The proposed driveway to the existing dwelling must join to the existing footpath, not replace it.

The proposed driveway to the proposed dwelling must extend the kerb and footpath.

The unused portions of the existing laybacks must be removed and the barrier kerb reinstated.

Vehicle crossings need to be at 900 to the road and the property boundary.


PAGE 56


PAGE 57


PAGE 58

2.5 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT PROJECT - ADOPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR BIG HILL AND MANDURANG VALLEY


Author Mark Stubbs, Senior Strategic Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This report provides Council with an overview and update on the Landscape Assessment for Big Hill and Mandurang Valley. The report includes a summary of the recent public exhibition process and the submissions received. A revised Landscape Assessment Report is presented for Council consideration in response to the submissions and further coordination on identified implementation actions.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2013)

Planning for Growth 1.4 Our communities have the space and facilities they need for future growth:

1.4.3 Implement the Bendigo Landscape Project - Big Hill & Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Overlay Planning Scheme Amendment.

Strategy Reference: The Rural Areas Strategy (2009). 8. Future Strategic Work: Significant Landscape Overlay – A study for the Big Hill escarpment, parts of the Mandurang Valley and areas of the Campaspe/Axe Creek.

Background Information

On 6 July 2011, Council endorsed a project brief describing the purpose and scope of a landscape assessment covering the areas of Big Hill and the Mandurang Valley. The broad purpose of the landscape assessment was to determine the values and significance of the study area landscapes and develop a planning and management response to how they may be affected by change in the future. The project has sought to:


PAGE 59

Define and describe (with photos, maps and description) the visual character of the landscapes;

Determine which aspects of the landscapes, including views and vistas, to and from the area, are the most significant and why;

Explore the community’s values of the character and significance of the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley landscapes;

Evaluate various forms of development that have occurred in these areas and their impact on landscape character and significance;

Identify a guiding vision for the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley landscapes; and,

Recommend ways in which the valued aspects of the landscapes can be holistically managed and protected – both through local landowner, community and government agency initiatives, including revised policy guidance in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

The landscape assessment has sought to establish a model process for potential application to other landscapes throughout Greater Bendigo (e.g. Axe Creek, Heathcote) at a later time.

Report

Priority/Importance High – Urban growth across the municipality has generated considerable pressures to develop the rural landscape for residential, rural residential and other low density living. This is largely a reflection of the strong demand for a rural residential lifestyle in close proximity to a major regional city. Because this development has the capacity to progressively transform the rural landscape, a more informed understanding of landscape values and significance is needed as a foundation for managing development and other change. The Rural Areas Strategy recognised this issue and established the mandate to investigate three of Bendigo’s rural landscapes – Big Hill, Mandurang and Axe Creek. Axe Creek was omitted from the study due to funding constraints.

Procurement

A Consultant, Planisphere Pty Ltd, was appointed in September 2011 to carry out this project in conjunction with the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) following a competitive procurement process.

Governance

Two main groups were established to provide governance for the project – a Steering Group and a Reference Group. The Steering Group oversaw and provided general direction to the project. Representation included three Councillors covering each of the then Eppalock (Cr Campbell), Kangaroo Flat (Cr Lyons) and Strathfieldsaye Wards (Cr Reynard), various City staff to draw on relevant service unit expertise, and a senior representative of the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD).


PAGE 60

The Reference Group comprised up to twelve individuals and representatives of organisations with the capacity to bring specialist knowledge, skills, information and resources. Representation included:

Farming Consultative Committee;

Heritage Advisory Committee;

Natural Environment Advisory Committee;

Department of Sustainability and Environment;

Parks Victoria;

Heritage Victoria; and,

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Steering and Reference Group meetings were held, ‘back-to-back’, at milestone points of four stages during the course of the project. The Process to Prepare the Landscape Assessment Project The Plan represents the culmination of an ongoing process of community and stakeholder engagement and collaboration, connected to various stages of research, analysis, conceptualisation and planning, as summarised in Appendix A. The project commenced in mid-January 2012 and has been completed over a timeframe of approximately 12 months.

Summary of Study Findings and Recommendations

The following section provides an overview of the main components of the Landscape Assessment Report, which is circulated separately, in full, as Appendix A. The report is structured according to six sections, as follows: 1. Introduction The introduction sets out the background to the project and gives an explanation of the study process, in particular the methodology used to assess landscape character and values, to identify change and management issues, to understand the planning policy gaps and then to determine the response in the form of a landscape management framework. Here, the project is also placed in the context of a best practice review of landscape assessment, locally and internationally. 2. Landscape Character This section addresses the assessment of landscape character. It begins by placing the study area within a wider contextual description of the ‘Greater Bendigo’ landscape. An explanation is given how the interplay of physical landscape characteristics, together with land use and built environment interventions, creates differences between one landscape and another and so forms the basis of landscape character definition. Six Character Areas are defined and described for the study area, each including observations of historic landscape change, anticipated future change, and consideration of the landscapes’ sensitivity to this change.


PAGE 61

3. Community Values Various community participation activities, including workshops, surveys and a photographic activity, have provide some insight into the local perspective on landscape values, community concerns about the landscape and preferences for how landscape change is managed. Whilst acknowledging that a limited proportion of the local community has participated actively in the project, community values as documented reflect a quite consistent alignment to the visual, natural, historic and social elements of the study area landscapes. Community feedback recognised that landscapes will change over time, and demonstrated a concern about the impact of this change. However equally, participants emphasised change, particularly through development, need to be compatible with landscape values. 4. Landscape Significance & Values Assessment In this section, a series of landscape value categories are described – visual values, historical and cultural values, environmental/scientific values, social values, economic values, and other miscellaneous values – and then described according to each of the six Character Areas. For example, a visual value of the Big Hill Character Areas (1 & 2) is the “spectacular panoramic views and scenery, unique setting with rolling hills, granitic outcrops and distant views to the surrounding ranges”. A social value of these areas is the “quiet and peaceful location, removed from but still within reach of the city centre”. The main finding of the landscape values analysis is that the highest landscape values are found in the two Big Hill Character Areas and the Box Ironbark Forests Character Area. 5. Future Directions Statements of future character directions are given for each of the Character Areas. The statements convey a broad sense of the preferred character and condition of the landscape to be carried into the future, recognising that change can and will occur, but should do so within managed limits. Their basis originated during the landscape characterisation stage of the project, and has been further developed by subsequent analysis of landscape values. 6. Landscape Management Framework (LMF) The LMF is, in effect, the implementation plan for the project. It puts the landscape assessment findings into practice across a range of disciplines covered by the City of Greater Bendigo’s service areas. Coordination with relevant service areas has taken place to ensure that the scope, responsibility and timing of actions are appropriate. The implementation actions can be divided into two main spheres – statutory actions and non-statutory actions.


PAGE 62

Statutory Actions – Changes to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The Planning Scheme fulfils an important ongoing role to manage landscape outcomes in response to landscape objectives. The following Planning Scheme changes are recommended:

Strengthening the Municipal Strategic Statement, including specific reference to the study area landscapes, the key issues, objectives and strategies; potentially under a section entitled ‘Landscape Character’ within Clause 21.08 Environment.

The addition of a new Local Planning Policy.

The application of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) to specific parts of the study area. This policy would be structured according to Schedules corresponding to the identified Character Areas, state the future character directions and specify permit and application requirements associated with particular types of development, informed by the identified landscape sensitivity to change and landscape threats.

A review of Schedules to the Rural Zones.

Inclusion of the Landscape Assessment Report and its Design and Development Guidelines (to be further refined for statutory policy purposes) as a Reference Document.

These actions, when in the Planning Scheme, govern decisions made on planning permit applications. Non-Statutory Actions A specific intent of this project is to recognise the complexity of factors in landscape change and to identify, in addition to the planning policy measures, available non-statutory actions as part of a more comprehensive management response. This framing of the project has led to the emergence of the concept of landscape ‘custodianship’. Inherent in this idea is an understanding that all people, whether they live, work, visit or manage land or development, within the study areas landscapes, interact with and affect the landscape and so have a role in its stewardship for the present and future. The LMF includes actions linked to the management of a range of specific landscape issues, ranging from development concerns such as our broader pattern of settlement and subdivision and lot size, to environment and landscape issues such as native vegetation, roadside vegetation, erosion and salinity. Actions related to the promotion, education and support of landscape management are also identified. The framework of actions corresponds with the focus of the project on landscape character and values, landscape change and future planning and management. Because there has not been a specific and comprehensive study, for example, of the ecology of the landscape or of the geology of the landscape, the actions related to these topics are necessarily broad, in recognition of their influence as one of a range of influencing factors. For similar reasons, the framework is also not absolute or exhaustive.


PAGE 63

Public Display and Response to Submissions

The Draft Landscape Assessment Report was made available for public viewing and comment for four weeks between 10 October and 8 September 2012. Notice of the display was given via a media release, a webpage update and community bulletins distributed to all residents and landowners within the study area, development industry representatives and government agencies. Listening posts were held locally in Big Hill and the Mandurang Valley to provide the opportunity for direct discussion about the project with the project team. Eight (8) written submissions were received during the public display period. Appendix B contains a summary of each submission, as well as a corresponding recommendation for any consequential changes to the Landscape Assessment Report. Recommendations were formulated by the project team and then discussed and agreed with the Steering Group and Reference Group. Several submissions sought some change to the recommendations of the Landscape Assessment Report, however where no change is recommended by officers in response, an explanatory note is provided. Submissions received from private individuals are not identified by name for privacy reasons. The version of the Landscape Assessment Report (Attachment A) presented to Council for adoption reflects the recommended changes. Submitter Presentations

Submitters were invited to present their views and concerns directly to Council at dedicated session held on 23 April 2013. This presentation session was recommended by officers at the Council Forum held on 27 February. It provided the opportunity for submitters to put their views and concerns directly to Council and for Councillors to factor this information into their decision-making about the Landscape Assessment Report and the associated recommendations of officers. The submitter presentations were not held for the purpose of altering officer recommendations about the Landscape Assessment Report. A number of Councillors also took part in a briefing and bus tour of the study area on 19 April 2013. Overview of Next Steps

A priority will be to pursue policy changes, as outlined, to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. This task alone is lengthy and complex and so will require the preparation of a project plan as well as allocation of Council officer resourcing. A budget allocation may be required for limited specialist Consultant support, potentially in a peer review capacity. Non-statutory implementation actions will be subject to consideration as part of future City of Greater Bendigo Service Unit Plans, in accordance with specified timeframes.


PAGE 64

Resource Implications

The total project budget was $82,500 (exclusive of GST). The project has been completed to its current stage with a small budget overrun (approximately 5% of the total project budget) for costs related to additional community engagement and Council briefing.

Attachments

Landscape Assessment Report, February 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to: 1. Adopt the Landscape Assessment Report for Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, dated

February 2013. 2. Advise submitters of this decision, of the responses to individual submissions and

provide a copy of the adopted Landscape Assessment Report. 3. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare a Planning

Scheme Amendment to implement a Significant Landscape Overlay and associated design guidelines in accordance with the recommendations of the Report.


PAGE 65

Appendix A. Submissions Summary, Response and Recommendations Table 1. Sequence of Project Work and Engagement

Activity Purpose Participation Date

Council Meeting 1 Council endorsement of project brief.

Council, CoGB Executive

July 2011

Consultant Procurement

Contract preparation and consultant engagement.

CoGB & Planisphere Jul-Sep 2011

Stage 1 - Inception (Jan-Feb 2012)

Background research including engagement with targeted

Broad liaison to document a comprehensive range of planning issues for Eaglehawk.

Various government agencies, local specialists and landowners

Feb-Mar 2012

Steering Group meeting 1 Reference Group meeting 1

Project introduction, explanation of study process and timeline, community engagement plan, role of Steering and Reference Groups.

Project Team, CoGB, Ward Councillors, Government agency and community representatives

2 Feb 2012

Council Meeting 2 Update report to advise Consultant procurement and delay in project commencement.


22 Feb 2012

Community Bulletin 1 Project introduction, explanation of study process and timeline, promotion of photographic activity and ‘pocket’ survey.

Landowners and residents in study area, development industry, government agencies and miscellaneous groups and individuals

28 Feb 2012

Media Release 1 As above. All 28 Feb 2012

Community Photographic Activity

Landscape photography from community perspective to assist in identifying community values.

Landowners and residents in the study area, local schoolchildren (over 100 photos submitted).

Feb-Apr 2012

Stage 2 - Landscape Characterisation (Feb-Mar 2012)

Character Area Analysis Papers (CAAPs)

Define and rationalise the study area as a series of character areas distinguished from one another by their relative physical and visual characteristics.

Project Team, Steering Group, Reference Group

Feb- Apr 2012

CoGB News Media Release

Feature article to promote the project.

All 18 Mar 2012


Review and endorsement of draft Character Area Analysis Papers (CAAPs).

Project Team, CoGB, Ward Councillors, Government agency and community representatives.

29 Mar 2012


PAGE 66


Community Bulletin 2 Project update including CAAPs summary and link to full CAAPS for comment. Community ‘pocket’ survey extension and notice of community workshops.

Landowners and residents in study area, development industry, government agencies and miscellaneous groups and individuals.

4 Apr 2012

Media Release 2 As above. All 4 Apr 2012

Stage 3 - Landscape Values (Apr-May 2012)

Mandurang Community Workshops (afternoon and evening)

Identify community perceptions of landscape values.

Landowners / residents (45 participants), Project Team.

18 Apr 2012

Big Hill Community Workshops (afternoon and evening)

Identify community perceptions of landscape values.


19 Apr 2012

Pocket Survey Responses

Community input about which landscape areas and elements are significant and why.


27 Apr 2012


Consideration of the Draft Landscape Assessment Report.


28 June 2012

Council Meeting 3 Update report to advise on progress and findings to date.


4 July 2012

Stage 4 - Landscape Management Framework (Jun-Aug 2012)

Draft Landscape Assessment Report

Present the landscape character, significance and values assessment, outline future directions and describe the management framework, including policy recommendations.

Project Team, Steering Group, Reference Group.

Sep 2012

Council Forum, Council Meeting 4

Explain the summary findings of the draft Landscape Assessment Report and seek endorsement for public display.


5 Sep 2012

Community Bulletin 3 Project update including summary findings of draft Landscape Assessment and the public display opportunity.


7 Sep 2012

Media Release 3 As above All 7 Sept 2012

Stage 5 - Community Exhibition & Report Finalisation (Sep 2012-Mar2013)


PAGE 67


Public Display Period Opportunity for public review and comment on the Draft Landscape Assessment Report.

All 10 Sep – 8 Oct 2012

Listening Post (Mandurang Valley)

Display of Landscape Assessment Report findings. Opportunity to discuss the project with CoGB staff.

All 26 Sep 2012

Listening Post (Big Hill)

Display of Landscape Assessment Report findings. Opportunity to discuss the project with CoGB staff.

All 27 Sep 2012


Review of preliminary recommendations in response to written submissions.


1 Nov 2012

Further reporting withheld due to introduction of newly-constituted Council. Provision to be made for Council briefing on the project ahead of any further

decision-making.

Implementation Coordination

Liaison with various CoGB service units to coordinate and finalise the identified implementation actions.

CoGB Jan-Feb 2013

Revised Landscape Assessment Report

Incorporate recommended revisions in response to public display submissions.

Project Team, Steering Group, Reference Group.

Feb 2013

Community Bulletin 4 Project update including advice on response to written submissions and consideration of the revised Landscape Assessment Report by Council.


4 Feb 2013

Council Forum Project update and overview of Vision and Concept Structure Plan.


27 Feb 2013

Project Briefing and Study Area Bus Tour

Explanatory briefing of Councillors about key areas of question and debate (based on submissions). Exploration of the study area for Councillor information and experience.

Councillors and Project Team

19 April 2013

Submitter Presentations to Council

Opportunity by invitation for Submitters to present their views and concerns to Councillors.

Councillors and Submitters

23 April 2013

Council Forum To review project activity since the last Council Forum and deliberate on any issues of concern or contention for Councillors.


15 May 2013


PAGE 68


Councillor Information Session

Describe prospective planning policy changes as a result of this study and implications for development within areas where the SLO is proposed.

Project Team, Councillors

28 April 2012

Council Meeting 5 (scheduled – subject to direction at Council Forum)

To consider the Landscape Assessment Report for adoption.


19 June 2013


PAGE 69

Appendix B. Submissions Summary, Response and Recommendations

Submitter Submission Summary Response and Recommendation

Submission A 1. Generally supportive of report. Is concerned about loss of habitat, DSE-controlled burns, tree clearing for powerlines, domestic cats harming wildlife and birds being killed in netting.

1. Actions related to landscaping and weeds on private property are addressed through the LMF and Design & Development Guidelines. Other items are managed through separate established policies and processes.

Recommendation: No change to plan.

Submission B 1. Does not support application of SLO on their property as it is not visible from the train line/Calder Highway.

2. More concerned about weeds than views.

3. Considers that Mount Alexander Shire should also be investigating landscape significance of adjoining land to the south of the study area.

1. Availability of views to this landscape from the train line or highway is only one consideration in determining the need for additional measures in its management. The SLO is recommended to be applied in this location as it forms the foreground to the Bill Hill range and is part of the Granitic Uplands Character Area, which is considered to be a significant landscape within this area. The landscape is visible from the Big Hill ridgeline and can be accessed and experienced from local roads and private property. This property is noted to be within the Farming Zone. In contrast, all other properties in this Character Area are within the Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ), and are excluded from the SLO as the RCZ has sufficient landscape protection provisions.

2. Weed management objectives contained in LMF.

3. Agreed. The Mount Alexander Shire is on the project mailing list and is updated on project activity.

Recommendation: Include action in Report for City of Greater Bendigo to initiate discussion with Mount Alexander Shire in relation to continuation of landscape assessment of the Big Hill range. Otherwise, no change to plan.

Expanded Existing State and Local Government Policies section in the Landscape Management Issues to include detail about policies of


PAGE 70


adjacent municipalities.

Included action in Implementation Table on Municipal Boundaries.

Submission C 1. Proposes greater protection of part of the upper catchment of the Bendigo Creek.

1. This section of Bendigo Creek (between Furness St & Cannon Lane) is outside the study area. Environmental Significance Overlays (Schedules 1 & 2) already exist on this section to protect the quality of the waterway. Design & Development Guidelines contain recommendations to discourage stock grazing to edge of creeks.

Recommendation: No change to plan. This issue has been referred to the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy review.

Submission D

(Big Hill Action Group)

1. Fully supportive of plan. 1. Noted.


Submission E

(CPG on behalf of Ravenswood Run)

1. Does not support application of SLO to the extent proposed in the Draft Report based on detailed analysis of views to their property (see attached summary for details).

1. Refer to detailed submission summary and response below.

Recommendation: Options for Big Hill SLO boundary discussed in detail with SG/RG. No change to plan recommended.


PAGE 71


Submission F 1. Concerned with inclusion of property (bounded by Calder Highway, Calder Alternate Highway & Belvoir Park Road) as it will impact upon future potential to subdivide. Wants to divide into lots of 10-15 acres to maintain landscape and assist in management of existing issues (weeds, erosion, etc).

1. The potential for subdivision in this location depends on a range of land use planning factors (eg. location of the UGB, requirement/ capability of land for agriculture, provision of services and transport) in addition to landscape management issues.

Application of the SLO will not prevent development of land, but will require more detailed consideration of landscape values and a sensitive design response.

The Calder Alternate Highway is a key viewing corridor to the western section of the Big Hill range. Glimpses of the range are available through the trees and undulating topography of the land between the Calder Alternate Highway and Belvoir Park Road.


Submission G 1. Not impressed with report nor the planning system in general.

2. Believes the study should propose fewer planning ‘rules’, which tend to stifle development and flexibility, and offer a more creative, non-traditional response to issues such as minimum lot sizes and development near forested areas with high bushfire risk.

1. Comments noted.

2. The issues highlighted are beyond the defined scope of the landscape assessment. Consideration of lot sizes and development close to forest is based upon many other factors, including City-scale strategic planning objectives and land capability. Policy such as the BMO is in place to address issues relating to fire risk.


Submission H

(DSE)

1. Consideration of threatened species and communities of native vegetation to be given.

1. Reference is made in the report to native vegetation, but not specifically to threatened species.

Recommendation: Include reference to threatened species in Values Assessment and Landscape Management Framework.

Detail included in Landscape Management Issues section and Implementation Table.


PAGE 72

Detailed Summary and Response to Submission E.

Submission Summary Response and Recommendation

Revise CA1 into two areas (ridge and low lying farmland) to better reflect landscape character and existing/potential settlement patterns. Remove latter from SLO.

Big Hill and the largely undeveloped farming land to the south is considered in this study as a single landscape unit. The documentation of landscape character, values and significance recognises the different features of this Character Area, being the ridge and southern slopes of Big Hill and the adjoining farming land. While these features are different in nature, it is considered that they combine to form a single landscape that should be assessed as a whole entity. The land to the south of Big Hill forms the setting for, and the foreground of views to, Big Hill. The undulating foreground landscape cannot be distinguished from the base of the Big Hill formation, and both seem to form a single landscape unit. The foreground and rise of Big Hill are an intrinsic part of the viewing corridor experience along this southern gateway into Bendigo.


SLO has been widely applied to areas of cleared, undulating farming land that is typical of the area around all of Bendigo, and adjoining area south to Mt Alexander Shire. This is not a unique, rare or threatened landscape.

Suggest SLO is only applied to elevated areas of high visual prominence.

The significance of Big Hill has been documented in the report. The largely undeveloped character of the landscape within the foreground of Big Hill is a key feature of Character Area 1. The land to the south of Big Hill forms the foreground of views to Big Hill and an important part of the southern gateway into Bendigo.

The view from the Big Hill ridgeline to Mount Alexander displays clearly the landscape character and its topographic features, with development largely concealed by vegetation.

It is considered important that new development in this area is sited and designed to be respectful of the landscape and to retain this largely undeveloped character.

The southern boundary of the SLO is based upon the clearly defined extent of road corridors, at a location considered to be the edge of the broader landscape setting of Big Hill.

This area was selected for a landscape assessment as it has been identified by the Rural Areas Strategy as significant within the context of Greater Bendigo.


Include action in report for City of Greater Bendigo to initiate discussion with Mount Alexander Shire in relation to continuation of landscape assessment of the Big Hill range.


PAGE 73

Undertake a viewshed analysis to justify SLO boundary.

The exact extent of the SLO boundary can be based upon a number of considerations, such as defined edges of landscape features, property boundaries, contours or roads. The boundary of the SLO for Big Hill has been based upon the extent of landscape that is considered to form the foreground of Big Hill and the southern gateway to Bendigo, and the landscape that falls within views from Big Hill to the south.

The direct visibility of a landscape from a public viewing area is not the sole consideration for application of an SLO extent, rather one of many considerations about landscape management.


Revise recommendations regarding subdivision and lot sizes for all areas aside from those of high significance.

The report recommends that the 40ha minimum lot size only be waived where stringent control on building design and vegetation are introduced.

Application of SLO will not prevent development of land, but will require more detailed consideration of landscape values and sensitive design response.


Residential development of three levels of density proposed across site.

Protect Big Hill ridgeline as a key landscape feature. Create buffer zone along ridgeline comprising fire buffer zone directly adjacent to National Park plus low density development zone of 8-10ha lots.

Significant landscape features mapped (creeks, granite outcrops, vegetation) and included in ‘transitional density’ areas of 1-2ha.

Appropriateness of residential development in this area depends on a range of land use planning factors (eg. location of UGB, requirement/ capability of land for agriculture, provision of services and transport) in addition to landscape management issues.

The proposed level of development within this largely undeveloped area will significantly change the landscape of Character Area 1 and the views across the landscape from Big Hill.

The aim to protect ridgeline and significant landscape features is noted. However, extent of proposed development exclusion zone to retain undeveloped character of Big Hill appears to be minimal. The other significant features of this landscape noted (creek corridor, granite outcrops, vegetation clusters) may potentially be obscured from view by development.



PAGE 74

2.6 BENDIGO BOTANIC GARDENS - GARDEN FOR THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION


Author Aaron Lindsay, Coordinator Public Space Design Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

This report seeks support to apply for Round 5 of the Regional Development Australia Fund and the Regional Development Victoria Putting Locals First with a revised implementation program for the Bendigo Botanic Gardens, Garden for the Future project.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013–2017:

1.2.8 Continue implementation of Bendigo Botanical Gardens Masterplan including further upgrade of the heritage gardens, commencing development of the contemporary gardens and upgrading the play space.


An application was submitted for the Bendigo Botanic Gardens, Garden for the Future and Visitor Hub to round 4 of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF). The Regional Development Australia Fund is a national program to support Australia’s regions and enhance the economic development and liveability of their communities. The Round 4 application was for the design and construction of the following components of the Bendigo Botanic Gardens Precinct:

Component 1 - Garden for the Future Contemporary botanic garden incorporating infrastructure to facilitate informal recreation; formal and informal events; organised community activities

Component 2 - Streetscape Access road incorporating bus, car and bicycle parking; pedestrian access


PAGE 75

Component 3 - Visitor Hub (level 1) Multi-purpose building to incorporating visitor information centre and gift shop; seminar space; café; offices; toilets

Figure 1: Bendigo Botanic Gardens, Garden for the Future Delivery Plan

The total project cost was $7.1M of which $3.5M was sought from the Commonwealth. The project was proposed to be delivered over 3 financial years commencing in the 2013/14 financial year and concluding in August 2016. Round 4 of the RDAF was a competitive application process, all funding applications were evaluated by an advisory panel before being submitted to a ministerial panel. The City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) was advised in June that it was unsuccessful in its application to round 4 of the RDAF. In their feedback the RDAF advisory panel stated that overall the application was very strong, in particular they noted that the responses to the selection criteria were ‘professional’ and of a ‘high’ quality. These comments were reinforced by the Regional Director for Regional Development Victoria.

Report

The Commonwealth Government announced another round of RDAF funding on 21 June, 2013. Applications close 22 July, 2013 with successful projects being announced prior to the federal election. Projects for Round 5 will be funded according to an allocative model; the CoGB is eligible for up to $1.08M in this funding round.


PAGE 76

In order to meet the RDAF criteria projects have to commence within 12 months from the signing of the funding agreement and be completed by December, 2016. Following the unsuccessful notification of the RDAF Round 4 application a meeting was conducted with Regional Development Victoria to discuss the Putting Locals First funding program. The CoGB would be eligible for up to $500K from this funding stream. CoGB officers understand that the Garden for the Future project would be considered favourably under this program. In addition to the potential RDAF and RDV funding, the Friends of the Bendigo Botanic Gardens have committed $20K to the development of the Garden for the Future. The total funding available for the Garden for the Future project is $1.6M as summarised in the table below.

Funding Source Available Funding

Regional Development Australia Fund $1.08M

Regional Development Victoria $0.5M

Friends of Bendigo Botanic Gardens $0.02M (confirmed)

Total Available External Funding $1.6M

The Garden for the Future delivery program has been revised based on the available funding and positive feedback received from the RDAF Advisory Panel. Component 1 (Streetscape) and Component 2 (Garden for the Future) will cost $5M to design and construct. Based on the available funding of $1.6M the required contribution from the CoGB would be $3.4M. Council has currently allocated $740K in the draft 2013/14 budget for the construction of the streetscape and access road, design of the Garden for the Future and continuation of the restoration works within the heritage garden precinct. This revised program would require Council to fund the remaining $2.66M over the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years. Due to the limited external funding available, construction of the Visitor Hub building is delayed in this revised proposal. While it is an important part of the Bendigo Botanic Gardens there may be future opportunities for external funding of the Visitor Hub that can be pursued during the delivery of components 1 and 2.


A significant amount of internal and external consultation was undertaken to prepare the Round 4 RDAF application. This will be able to be used to demonstrate community support in applying for both the RDAF Round 5 and RDV Putting Locals First programs. Internal Consultation: The development of the RDAF Round 4 application involved significant cross-departmental input. The application was coordinated by Engineering and Public Space Unit and involved representatives from the following departments:


PAGE 77

Economic Development

Major Projects

Tourism

Healthy Communities

Contract and Project Coordination

Finance

Statutory Planning

Community and Cultural Development

Parks and Natural Reserves

People and Performance External Consultation: The Garden for the Future project and associated RDAF funding bid were promoted in the April, 2013 issue of the Greater Bendigo Magazine and were featured in the Bendigo Advertiser and Weekly. A total of 30 letters of community support were received from local politicians, allied institutions, State government departments, local governments within the Loddon Mallee Region, education departments (primary, secondary and tertiary) and local community groups for the implementation of the Garden for the Future project. These were incorporated into a community support document as part of the RDAF Round 4 application. The significant community consultation that was undertaken in the development of the Master Plan and subsequent implementation was also captured in this document. In their evaluation the RDAF Advisory Panel noted that the community support document was an ‘ideal’ example of community support / engagement process.

Conclusion

Following the notification of an unsuccessful RDAF Round 4 application the CoGB has reviewed the proposed Garden for the Future project program in relation to available funding sources. The revised program of works will allow for the streetscape and garden for the future components (1 & 2) to be delivered. This delivery will allow for the identification of further funding opportunities to develop the visitor hub (component 3) in the near future. The development of Garden for the Future will reinforce the Bendigo Botanic Gardens as a vibrant, forward looking parkland precinct and cultural hub unique within central Victoria and support further implementation of the Master Plan vision.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the revised delivery program for the Bendigo Botanic Gardens, Garden for the Future project and support the application for funding from the Regional Development Australia Fund Round 5 and Regional Development Victoria, Putting Locals First.


PAGE 78

2.7 PARKING IN THE VIEW STREET PRECINCT


Author Brett Martini, Manager Engineering and Public Space Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of the report is to inform Council of the findings of the parking assessment study completed for the View Street precinct and feedback from community consultation in accordance with previous Council resolutions. The report recommends a number of low cost options that would improve the parking in the precinct.


Concern over parking has existed for some time in the View Street precinct. In particular, adequacy of parking around Catholic College Bendigo (CCB) has been debated for some time with a study occurring in 2009. At the Council meeting on the 4 July 2012, a motion was passed that a report be prepared within two meetings responding to a petition regarding parking at the Dr Harry Little Preschool (DHLP). At the Council meeting on the 4 September 2012, a motion was passed that included creating an additional three parking spaces in View Street and continuing to engage in discussion with DHLP for preparation of the parking precinct plan. More recently, parking to service DHLP and the impact of the success of the Bendigo Corner Store Café (BCSC) at the View Street / Langston Street intersection have been brought to Council’s attention. In October 2012 it was determined that a further parking study would be undertaken to consider the issues around the three major parking generators - DHLP, CCB and the BCSC. Ian Holmes from TrafficWorks was engaged to prepare a Parking Study Report. Mr Holmes had previously prepared the Parking Study Report for CCB in 2009 and was therefore familiar with the issues around CCB and the area. Mr Holmes met with DHLP, CCB and the BCSC to determine operating times and peak uses. Based on this information parking survey times were established and included morning and afternoon peaks around DHLP and CCB and the lunch time peak at the BCSC. Given the short term parking demand in the area, data was collected in 5 minute intervals around DHLP and CCB including information on the length of stay. Parking data was collected at 15 minute intervals at the café.


PAGE 79

At the Council meeting on 29 May 2013, a report was presented on the findings of the parking survey and recommended changes. At this meeting it was resolved that Council: 1. Consult with organisations and residents in the study area and receive feedback on: (a) the current parallel parking outside Dr Harry Little Pre-School be changed to

angle parking and restricted parking;

(b) the View Street bus stop be relocated further north to allow for more parking; and

(c) other options in the parking study report and the officer's report, in particular, parking times in all locations.

2. Prepare a further report on responses to the consultation and costings on proposed

works to be implemented with the report being presented to Council within six (6) weeks.

Following the Council meeting, 164 letters were sent to residents and organisations in the area seeking their feedback. The letter outlined a number of options for changes to parking in the area including:

Changing the existing 6 parallel parking bays in front of DHLP to 13 x 600 angle parking

bays.

Changing the time restriction on the parking bays in front of DHLP to 30 minutes.

Applying 30 minute time restrictions to some of the parking bays on the south-west side of

View Street between Barnard Street and DHLP.

Applying 30 minute time restrictions to the existing three parallel parking bays on the south-

west side of View Street (opposite Barkly Street).

Moving the bus stop on the south west side of View Street (opposite Barkly Street) further up

View Street and converting the existing bus bay to 30 minute time restricted parallel parking.

Removal of Saturday morning parking restrictions.

Requesting that Australia Post relocate the post box to an alternative location away from the

BCSC.

Additional signage and line marking to better define parking areas and delineate no standing

areas.

Nineteen responses were received including a joint letter with 10 signatures and a petition from DHLP with 140 signatures. In regard to the proposal to change some of the parallel parking in View Street to angle parking, the DHLP petition and one other submission were supportive of angle parking from Barnard Street up to and including the current bus stop to create additional parking spaces in the area.


PAGE 80

Five other submissions were supportive of changing the parking directly in front of DHLP to increase the number of parking spaces and that the road deflection will slow traffic. However 6 submissions opposed this proposal due to additional congestion caused by cars trying to back out into View Street and at intersections with Rosalind and Barkly Streets, reduced safety by cars trying to back out, parallel parking being safer for children to exit and enter vehicles, reduced safety at intersections and increased risk for cyclists due to deflection of the bike lane. In regard to the relocation of the bus stop, the DHLP petition and 4 others supported the relocation further north, 1 submission recommended it be moved south and 1 submission opposed the change due to reduced safety by moving it closer to the crest of the hill in View Street and impacts on safety for access to local properties. Two submissions opposed the changes but based on their comments they have misinterpreted the information and thought that the bus stop was to be moved to the other side of View Street. In regard to the changing of the time zones, DHLP supported 90 minute parking restrictions from Barnard St to the bus stop. Two submissions supported 30 minute parking during peak periods. Submissions also raised concern regarding the impact time restricted parking has on their ability and that of visitors to park in View Street along with provision for people who work at businesses and schools in the area. Improvements around the BCSC being increased signage and line marking and relocation of the post box were largely supported. Submissions also raised the benefit of undertaking signage and line marking on other sections of Langston Street and the ability to provide angle parking by reducing the nature strip width. A number of submissions raised concerns regarding the parking and traffic in Valentine Street adjacent to CCB. Valentine Street is utilised for bus parking, student drop-off and staff parking making local access and parking difficult. This also occurs during events held at the Marion Centre at the school. Realignment of the kerb to provided additional traffic width and angle parking was put forward. One submission also raised a reduction in the speed limit in View Street to increase safety. Residential parking permits were also raised as a possible option.

Report

The submissions received reinforced the differing land uses in the area and the different requirements for parking and traffic movements in the area. It is also clear that whilst there are concerns with the current arrangements in the area, there is not a solution that will meet all needs. Around DHLP there is a requirement to balance the need for access to the preschool with that of the adjoining residents, some of whom have little or no provision for off-street parking. There are also different requirements for access to DHLP for drop-off of children, extended stays and staff parking. Whilst DHLP have requested a blanket 90 minute time restriction it is more appropriate to provide a range of parking time restrictions. The shortest time limit being the closest to the preschool to enable high use of the parks closest to the entry and longer time restrictions and all day parking is provided further away from the DHLP entry.


PAGE 81

Based on the information gathered from the parking survey, 30 minute parking would be appropriate directly in front of DHLP, 90 minute parking for 3 bays opposite Barkly Street and 3 bays south of the DHLP entry. This would apply between 8.30am and 5pm, Monday-Friday. Whilst this does place some restrictions on spaces available for resident parking, three parking spaces were created earlier in the year near Barnard Street so this returns the arrangements whereby 4 all day parking spaces are available in this area. Based on the parking report, the installation and changes to time restrictions are considered to provide additional parking for the DHLP to meet the short term demand. The retention of the parallel parking in front of DHLP provides the safest conditions for drop-off and pick-up of children at the preschool, by allowing the passenger side of the car to be adjacent the kerb. This also maintains the straight alignment of the traffic and bike lane. The change from parallel to angle parking in front of DHLP can be achieved with minor modification to the kerb at Barkly Street. This would create additional conflict between reversing cars and through traffic along with the requirement to deviate the traffic and bike lanes. As the relocation of the bus stop does not create any additional parking, it is considered that the bus stop be retained at its current location as this is the safest location for both bus users and for access to adjoining properties. Improvements to signage and line marking in Valentine and Langston Streets would improve the access for residents. Further discussion will be held with CCB to consider the best options for access to the school for cars and buses along with staff parking. Any major changes resulting from the discussions would be developed with a view to consideration in the 2014/15 budget. A formal approach will be made to Australia Post to relocate the post box to a better location in the area to minimise traffic and parking conflict with other businesses in the area. The current speed limits on roads in the area are generally 50km/h. A 40km/h speed zone applies around three sides of CCB (as there is no access from the school onto View Street a school zone does not apply). Barnard Street is an arterial road and has a 60km/h speed limit. These speed limits have been reviewed against the current VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual - Speed Zone Guidelines. The current speed zones meet these guidelines and no changes are proposed at this time. Council policy in regard to residential parking permits is that they apply to properties that have no off-street parking and allow permit holders to be exempt from time restrictions. Whilst this would make very few properties eligible for a residential parking permit, the mix of parking time restrictions (during business hours) and the provision of all-day parking is considered to serve the residential on-street parking needs.


PAGE 82


As outlined above, 164 letters were forwarded following the last Council meeting and 19 responses were received.


Changes to signage and line marking in the recommendation have been estimated at $5,000 and can be accommodated within the traffic management budget in the 2013/14 budget. Changing the parallel bays in front of DHLP to angle bays has been estimated at $20,000 largely due to the change to the kerb at Barkly Street.

Conclusion

The consultation with the community in the area provided feedback on the options that were being considered and raised a number of other issues regarding traffic and parking in the area. Differing views were expressed in regard to a number of options being considered. In particular there were mixed views from adjoining residents in regard to changes from parallel to angle parking and changes to parking restrictions. DHLP presented another petition in support of their desire for additional on-street parking with 90 minute time restrictions. In order to try to balance the competing demands in the area of DHLP whilst maintaining the safest possible environment for all road users, it is recommended that the existing parallel parking remain but time restrictions be amended to facilitate the various demands in the area. Installation of additional signage and line marking throughout the area will aid in reducing conflict between parking and property access. Changes to school access will be discussed with CCB to consider possible improvements to school bus pick-up and drop-off particularly in Valentine Street.

Attachments

1. Letter to residents/properties – opportunity for submissions.

2. View Street parking plan – as per recommendation – DHLP.

3. View Street parking plan – as per recommendation – BCSC.

RECOMMENDATION

After consideration of the View Street Precinct Parking Study, Catholic College Parking Study and feedback from the community consultation, it is recommended that Council: 1. Undertake the following parking improvements:

a) Change 3 parking bays on the south-west side of View Street between Barnard Street and the DHLP gate from unrestricted to 90 minutes.

b) Change the 6 parking bays in front of DHLP to 30 minutes.


PAGE 83

c) Change the 3 parking bays on the south-west side of View Street between DHLP and the bus stop from unrestricted to 90 minutes.

d) Relocate the post box away from high demand parking areas at the BCSC.

e) Install no standing signs and line mark parking bays near intersections and driveways near the BCSC.

2. In conjunction with CCB consider possible changes to the school bus pick-up and

drop-off arrangements and locations.

3. Notify DHLP, CCB, BCSC and residents in the area of Council's decision.

Alternative Motion

That Council having considered the View Street Precinct Parking Study, Catholic College Parking Study and feedback from community consultation: 1. Undertake the following parking improvements

a. Change the existing 6 parallel parking bays in front of DHLP to 13 x 60 degree

angle parking bays

b. Apply a 30 minute time restriction to 6 of these angle parking bays

c. Change the 3 parking bays on the southwest side of View Street between DHLP

and the bus stop from unrestricted to 90 minute parking

d. Change 3 parking bays on the south west side of View Street between Barnard

Street and the DHLP from unrestricted to 90 minutes

e. In consultation with Australia Post, relocate the post box away from the high

demand parking area at the BCSC

f. Install no standing signs and line mark parking bays near intersections and

driveways near BCSC

2. In conjunction with CCB consider possible changes to the school bus pick-up and

drop-off arrangements and locations

3. Notify DHLP, CCB, BCSC and residents in the area of Council decision.

Liveability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 84

3. LIVEABILITY

3.1 REVISED AXEDALE COMMUNITY PLAN 2013-2016


Author Lyn Talbot, Corporate and Community Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

To congratulate the Axedale community on completing their revised Axedale and District Community Plan 2013-2016.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

Community Plans provide an important form of engagement in the various Small Town and neighbourhood communities, and they facilitate a strong basis for connection and communication between the City of Greater Bendigo and the communities. Review and renewal of the Small Town Community Plans is an ongoing priority of Council. It has been listed as a priority action in the new Council Plan 2013-2017. In addition, Council has made a strong commitment in the Council Plan to undertaking diverse community engagement as a means of achieving mutual understanding about ongoing priorities and future developments. Regular review of a community plan provides an important opportunity to bring community members together to reflect on what has been achieved, what is yet to be done, and whether the current plan still reflects their priorities. Greater Bendigo 2036:

Council made a strong commitment in 2005 to support the development of community plans, including the Greater Bendigo +25 Community Plan which set a long-term agenda for the whole municipality. The Greater Bendigo 2036 community plan was completed in 2011, and it represents a long-term (25 year) vision by the community. One recommendation in that plan was to ensure that local community plans continued to have significance and resonance in various Council discussion forums. Greater Bendigo 2036 identifies a community priority to "Plan strategically to foster community inclusiveness" and “Provide genuine opportunities for public input into locality plans before they are finalised, to overcome the perception of tokenism”. The 2036 Community Plan is referred to in the Council Plan as a major document providing input into the yearly revision.


PAGE 85


Following the development of the over-arching Greater Bendigo +25 Community Plan in 2005 a process was commenced to support each of the eleven small towns to develop their own community plan with a shorter time-frame. State Government support for the +25 initiative hasn’t been continued, but the CoGB has continued to endorse the provision of support for plan preparation and implementation. It is a normal cycle that plans need review and renewal periodically, perhaps when some of the aims have been achieved, or others are no longer priorities for the community. This review process provides an opportunity to look back and celebrate what has been achieved, and to look forward to what can be achieved together in the future. In the case of Axedale, a very active and collaborative community committee Axedale – Our Town Our Future has overseen the implementation of the previous plan. They have been very successful in attracting funding from sources other than the City of Greater Bendigo and they have successfully completed most of the planned goals and actions. Many small towns are challenged by the need to maintain their local services and facilities and ensure the viability of their local groups and organisations. Working together across the whole community means the workload can be shared and is less onerous and this has been one of the successes in Axedale. However there is always capacity to broaden opportunities for active participation in community activities and the development of a new plan provides a timely opportunity to do this. In the past, each new or revised community plan has been endorsed by Council to be used as a primary document of advice regarding identified community priorities, and with regards potential funding opportunities.

Report

The revised Axedale & District Community Plan.

The goals areas identified by the community are:

- To rejuvenate the Campaspe River Reserve;

- To communicate effectively with community members;

- To establish a new and unique annual event in Axedale;

- To compose a plan for future small business growth in Axedale;

- To redevelop the Axedale park precinct;

- To conduct a needs assessment re public and shared transport options.


The Axedale-Our Town Our Future Committee was formed to support the development of their first local planning activities in 2007.


PAGE 86

The community planning review processes undertaken recently by the Committee involved extensive community consultations that included a survey of the community members, a series of public meetings / forums, and the distribution of the draft plan for comment to community members. The revised plan was launched by Cr Rod Campbell during the Axedale Community Market on Saturday 25 May 2013.

Conclusion

Axedale-Our Town Our Future has delivered a renewed Community Plan that will contribute in a strategic manner to informed exchange of advice and information between the communities and the City of Greater Bendigo, and other interested organisations. The community goals have been summarised and presented in a small poster (attached) in an effort to make the document more readily accessible. This is supported by a more detailed background document (attached). In parallel, the Axedale website has been updated and a number of other strategies are being used by the community to increase awareness of and participation in the actions arising out of the plan. Community plans enhance the structured mechanism for successful partnerships to form between these communities and organisations with an interest in the development of Axedale, including the CoGB. As with all Small Town and Neighbourhood community plans, the goals outlined in this Community Plan should be considered when new Council Plan actions and other strategic planning processes are being undertaken.


The City of Greater Bendigo has continued support for the development of new community plans in the small towns and neighbourhoods, and the review of these plans when appropriate. During the process of development and review the communities are provided with a range of in-kind assistance, such as document development, printing and mailing. These costs are covered in the annual Community Planning budget. Resource implications for the implementation phase of the Community Plans are supported by staff form the Community and Cultural Development unit who assist with grants funding applications and support and a range of other community development activities and celebrations.

Attachments

1. Revised Axedale & District Community Plan.


PAGE 87

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo City Council:

a. Congratulate the Axedale community on the review, finalisation and launch of the Axedale & District Community Plan 2013-2016; and

b. Endorse the principle that City of Greater Bendigo involvement in these geographic areas and communities be guided by the relevant Community Plan.


PAGE 88

3.2 COMMUNITY POLICING VEHICLE


Author Suzie Mansell, Manager, Community Partnerships Responsible Pauline Gordon, Director Community Wellbeing Director

Summary/Purpose

To consider a community petition requesting that Council reinstate the use of a motor vehicle for Victoria Police to use for community policing.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009 - 2013 Within the theme area ‘Community and Culture’, there is a strategy to ‘work collaboratively to promote community safety and healthy living. Two actions under this strategy are to ‘support the Bendigo Safe Community Forum and assist with the delivery of agreed actions that support community safety’ and to ‘develop community safety programs and initiatives throughout the municipality’. Strategy Reference (include weblink as applicable): Bendigo Safe Community Forum Strategic Directions 2010 - 2012 The Bendigo Safe Community Forum’s Strategic Directions priority areas include ‘to promote safe and connected communities’ with the identified role as being ‘to increase community connections’. Petition Council resolved at its ordinary meeting on 8 May 2013 to respond to a petition about the former community vehicle. The petition states: "We, the undersigned, request the City of Greater Bendigo reverse their earlier decision and reinstate the use of a motor vehicle designated to the Neighbourhood Watch and other Police business". Signatures - 158 Background In 2008, City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) entered into a vehicle lease agreement with Victoria Police for a Community Policing Vehicle. It was considered this would better enable the local Proactive Policing Unit to progress activities identified as priorities by the Bendigo Safe Community Forum (Forum) to deliver the range of programs and services the Unit offers across the region.


PAGE 89

Victoria Police used the dedicated community policing vehicle for a range of activities including meeting attendance, safety presentations, community events and education to a range of organisations across Greater Bendigo during the tenure of this arrangement. The initial agreement was for a two year term from August 2008 to August 2010, however in 2010 CoGB approved a further one year term August 2010 to August 2011. The contract then moved to a month by month arrangement until Council resolved to discontinue that arrangement on 26 September 2012. Under the terms and conditions of former agreements Victoria Police was responsible for:

The costs of fueling and maintaining the service schedule for the vehicle.

Keeping the vehicle garaged when not in use.

Operational procedures for usage and care of the vehicle.

Quarterly reports to CoGB outlining how the vehicle was used to participate in community safety activities.

Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): 26 September 2012: 1. That Council resolve not to renew the lease agreement with Victoria Police for a

Community Policing Vehicle on the basis it is a State Government responsibility to fund resources for Police and in light of the significant financial challenges that the Local Government sector is facing.

2. That Council strongly advocate to Victoria Police and the State Government for

additional funding for pro-active policing across the Greater Bendigo region.

Report

Following Council’s resolution to discontinue the agreement, the Community Policing Vehicle was returned to CoGB and subsequently sold at auction. A petition - coordinated by Neighbourhood Watch - has now been received requesting that Council reconsider its previous resolution. The petition includes 158 signatures. Council Officers have made a range of inquiries following receipt of the petition and can advise as follows:

Victoria Police has continued to explore alternative arrangements for sourcing of a vehicle for the Proactive Policing Unit. This has included requesting a replacement vehicle through Victoria Police and seeking corporate sponsorship through local businesses. Victoria Police has advised that there is no current capacity for a replacement vehicle to be sourced through their organisation due to high demand across the state for additional operational (reactive) policing vehicles which are automatically assigned priority. Given the current State Government budgetary climate, this situation is unlikely to change within the foreseeable future.


PAGE 90

Victoria Police has also advised that its ongoing efforts to attract corporate sponsorship for a replacement vehicle have been unsuccessful.

Victoria Police is an active member of the Forum and is a significant contributor in the delivery of its Strategic Directions. The Proactive Policing Unit has previously used the community policing vehicle and it plays a key in promoting community safety at the local level. Staff within the Proactive Policing Unit are regularly called upon to support strategy development and implementation in relation to current and emerging community safety issues and opportunities, to work in partnership with other Forum member agencies, and to deliver key programs and activities at the local level.

A Community Policing Vehicle is viewed as a tool for promoting the important community safety partnership between CoGB and Victoria Police. The branding of the former vehicle with both CoGB and Victoria Police logos was a very visible way of conveying this partnership.

Priority/Importance: The Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to consider reports responding to any petitions received within two Council meeting cycles. As the Community Policing Vehicle related petition was formally received by Council on 8 May 2013, this report is due for consideration at a Council meeting no later than 19 June 2013.

Resource Implications:

It should be acknowledged that the local government sector is facing many financial challenges and that the inability of Victoria Police to provide a replacement vehicle could be viewed as a State Government cost shift over to Local Government. There is no financial allocation for this program in Council’s 2013/14 budget. The cost of the new vehicle has been quoted at $24,385 (excluding GST). This would be a capital expense to be taken up in 2013/14. Based on a five year vehicle lease agreement and allowing for a 40% residual vehicle value of $9,754, the forecast total capital cost to CoGB over the proposed five year term is $14,631 (or $2,926 in depreciation per annum). Allowing for a one off cost of $1,800 for branding of the new vehicle, plus estimated insurance costs of $600 per year, the total costs (capital and operational) per annum are forecast to be $3,886. If a shorter vehicle lease agreement were to be considered (e.g., three years), it is anticipated that the residual value of the vehicle would be higher however this would be offset by higher annual depreciation rates. It is therefore considered that a five year agreement would be the most cost effective. Option 1: That Council reaffirm its previous resolution to not enter into a further agreement.


PAGE 91

Option 2: That Council resolve to enter into a new and final five year agreement with Victoria Police to supply a vehicle for the community policing program. This requires Council to allocate resources to the cost of a police vehicle for the next five year and approve a variation to the 2013/14 budget. Risk Analysis: Victoria Police has a limited supply of vehicles internally and vehicles are allocated based on the level of priority: in all cases reactive policing functions take priority over proactive policing functions. It has been reported that the Proactive Policing Unit’s capacity to undertake their core community based work has been adversely impacted as a direct result of no longer having access to a dedicated vehicle. In some instances their staff have been unable to attend important community meetings and Forum meetings due to lack of availability of a vehicle. It is difficult to draw direct correlations between the impacts of the Proactive Policing Unit’s functions on crime rates, but anecdotal information suggests that crime rates increase when proactive policing functions are reduced. The Proactive Policing Unit has reported that they were able to build the level of their community based work considerably while the former agreements were in place.


Internal Consultation CoGB’s Finance Unit has assisted in the preparation of this report through the provision of forecast costs as outlined in the resource implications if a new agreement were to be entered into. External Consultation: At the Bendigo Safe Community Forum meeting of 7 September 2012, the Forum provided their support for Council to continue the vehicle lease agreement with Victoria Police. Forum members were advised of Council’s decision to not continue the agreement at the Forum meeting of 2 November 2012. Forum members expressed concerns about Council’s decision and its likely impacts and conveyed that they would explore further advocacy opportunities for a new vehicle lease agreement within their respective organisations / networks. Victoria Police (and the Proactive Policing Unit, in particular) has confirmed the direct impacts that have been experienced since the discontinuation of the agreement. Discussion The partnership between the City of Greater Bendigo and Victoria Police has been a positive one as evidenced in the Safe Community Forum and shared community policing vehicle initiative. The feedback from Victoria Police is that the vehicle has been a valuable resource that enables a proactive approach to community policing when other vehicles are not available.


PAGE 92

The petition indicates appreciation for the work of the community policing program and the joint work between the City and Bendigo Police. The success of the shared community policing vehicle during the arrangement has been acknowledged by both organisations. The expense for a dedicated community policing vehicle has not been budgeted for by either organisation. Although a valued program for both organisations to continue to fund this initiative would require resources to be diverted from other areas that also need support and/or to cease another project within the draft budget to accommodate this request. The City of Greater Bendigo acknowledges the important partnership with Victoria Police and the success of the shared dedicated community policing vehicle. It has been a positive program that is highlighted by the community support requesting it continued. However, it is not sustainable to continue to fund a dedicated vehicle for Victoria Police and it is time to consider other ways of supporting community policing in Greater Bendigo.

Attachments

Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to Council’s attention;

Acknowledge the value of the partnership work with Victoria Police, including achievements of the shared community policing vehicle;

Uphold the previous recommendation to cease this program.

Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 93

4. PRODUCTIVITY

Nil.

Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 94

5. SUSTAINABILITY

5.1 FORTUNA - COUNCIL POSITION ON THE HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN


Author Megan McDougall, Heritage Architect / Adviser Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Fortuna is a marvellous, fascinating icon for Bendigo and beyond. At the moment it sits idle and languishing. Bringing it back to life for future generations will be exceptionally challenging. It is an outstanding heritage site. The topography of the site, contamination and scale of the site will be difficult challenges to overcome. Now Fortuna is sold, the regime of its protection, control and redevelopment will transfer from the Federal Government to State and local government. Most decisions will be made by Heritage Victoria. Council will be required to advise Heritage Victoria of its view in all decisions. The new owner will also seek Council’s position on what is possible. Council will determine what use is possible through the rezoning process. In developing Council’s position, strategic objectives for the site are proposed, that protect the heritage values while establishing a positive framework to enable the redevelopment of the site. These are to:

o Retain and interpret the heritage values of the site for future generations

o Support contemporary and creative re-use of the site

o Facilitate appropriate re-development of the site

o Ensure any development is economically viable and sustainable in the long

term

o Optimise public/community benefits and access from the development of the

site

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity



PAGE 95

Sustainability

Strengthen the links between Greater Bendigo's past and future by protection and contemporary re-use of our heritage assets.


Fortuna is a substantial and important heritage site of 7.57 hectares in Chum Street Golden Square currently owned by the Department of Defence and in the final stages of being sold.

Figure 1: Location Map

History of the Site Theodore Ballerstedt and his father, Christopher, arrived in Sandhurst (Bendigo) in 1853 from the goldfields of California and purchased the site from the Crown in 1857. In 1858, Ballerstedt made improvements including a small mill and house. In 1869, he tendered for a two-storey addition to Fortuna. Around the same period, the stables, billiard room, a lookout tower and Roman baths were constructed. In 1871 Ballerstedt sold the house, mine and associated works to George Lansell. At the peak of the mining era, Fortuna was owned by ‘The Quartz King’, George Lansell. During his time at Fortuna, Lansell owned 13 mines and directed a further 73 mines.


PAGE 96

The wealth Lansell generated from the mines funded the continuous expansion of the mansion and grounds. The mansion was built in a number of architectural styles, namely Victorian Italianate and Victorian Free Classical, with Federation influences. The landscape featured up to seven ornamental lakes in the early 1870s, including the larger lake which remains today. It is understood that the lakes were originally used as disposal points for tailings produced in the gold processing activities at the site. A rose garden and (scale replica) Pompeii fountain were also added to the grounds at this time. From 1942 to 1986 the Army occupied the site. During this period, additional buildings were constructed and existing buildings were modified for re-use. One of the more notable changes to the landscape included the filling of six of the seven ornamental lakes to create recreational areas. Between 1986 and 1996 there was a great deal of uncertainty about the continued status of the incumbent unit occupying the site, the Army Survey Regiment. In 1996 it was disbanded and some army personnel decided to keep their positions at Fortuna but in a Defence civilian capacity. DIGO (Defence Imagery Geospatial Organisation) was established in 2000 and occupied the site, using it for various photographic processing and printing purposes, including the storage and use of photographic chemicals. The Army accommodation buildings and reproduction buildings (to the west) have remained inactive for most of this period.1 Summary Statement of Heritage Values2 Fortuna is associated with the beginning of the gold mining industry in Bendigo, particularly the quartz mining reef in one of the richest such goldfields in the world in the nineteenth century. Fortuna is regarded in Bendigo today as a symbol of the town’s early growth on the wealth of gold, much of it attributed to George Lansell’s intuition for finding and exploiting reef deposits. At one stage, Fortuna was one of the richest mines in Bendigo and probably had the deepest gold mine in the world at 3,176 feet. Fortuna, the site and its villa, demonstrates a distinctive way of life associated with the earliest period of gold mining in Australia. The excesses of Fortuna are inextricably linked with George Lansell, the ‘Quartz King’, Australia’s first gold mining millionaire and credited as the driving force behind much of Bendigo’s prosperity. George Lansell’s industrial-scale mining operations and quartz-crushing works were pioneering and he lived a lavish nineteenth-century lifestyle as a result of his successful mining operations in Victoria Fortuna Villa, initially built as a modest single-storey home in 1861, was gradually enlarged until 1934 into a sprawling mansion of a size and grandeur with few rivals. Lansell continuously added to the villa, decorating it extravagantly with the finest materials and features. The garden landscape was also planted lavishly with fashionable trees and garden features such as the unique Pompeii fountain, iron arbour and rotunda were part of the villa landscape experience.

1 http://www.fortunavilla.net.au/site-history/

2 Godden Mackay Logan, P 46, 47.


PAGE 97

The whole of Fortuna is unique and considered a cultural landscape because of the creative interaction of the domestic and mining landscapes through the use of the redundant mining spaces such as settling ponds and tailings in a residential garden. Most particularly, the creation of ornamental lakes from the remains of settling ponds is recorded in the form of the property’s single remaining lake and landscape setting, which retains much of its picturesque qualities. The juxtaposition of mining activities and the domestic villa garden in the same complex is highly unusual in Australian mining and industrial history. The Fortuna mining and crushing works, close to the villa and George Lansell’s control, represents a direct link between his wealth and its source.

Figure 2: View of the complex from New Chum Hill in c1879. (Source: DIGO Collection

The history of Fortuna also has a long association with Defence, having been used since 1942 by the Australian Military Forces Cartographic Company, the Army Survey Regiment and DIGO. The importance of the site is evidence of World War II and Defence activities responding to the demands of war and of the long associations with a highly specialised and critical arm of Defence capability. The mapping activities at Fortuna have also continued to be technologically advanced at an international level. The place provides evidence of Defence’s adaptation of mining buildings for mapping and printing processes and use by Defence of the grounds for the parade ground and recreation. This provides an understanding of the historical development and subsequent uses of the site. The villa has continued to be used for accommodation and administration and the former crushing works for the storage and printing of military maps. The printing annexe and two corrugated-iron buildings (P-type huts) are the earliest evidence of the Army’s presence at Fortuna.


PAGE 98

Fortuna is significant as the former home and lifelong passion of George Lansell. His wealth and renown are demonstrated in the calibre of guests hosted by him at Fortuna including royalty, governors of Victoria and Dame Nellie Melba. Fortuna is also associated with Christopher and Theodore Ballerstedt, the property’s original owners, who are believed by many to have been Australia’s first mining magnates. The site’s operation under Defence includes historic and social associations with the AWS, Italian POWs, Australia artists and groups such as the ex-Fortuna Association and the Friends of Fortuna. Fortuna is important as a relatively intact example of a large nineteenth-century villa estate, comparable with properties such as Rippon Lea at Elsternwick. It combines a number of architectural styles, including Victorian Italianate and Victorian Free Classical, although Federation influences are evident in the later, especially 1904-1906 additions. Ultimately, the villa represents a conglomeration of complementary styles, orchestrated over a considerable period by some of Bendigo district’s finest architects, including Vahland, Gretzschmann and Beebe. There is a separate Archaeological Assessment and Statement of Significance. Ownership The property has recently been sold, with settlement on 24 June 2013. Current Heritage Protection Fortuna is currently on the Commonwealth Heritage List, which can only include places in Commonwealth Ownership. Fortuna is currently covered by Heritage Overlay 434 in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, 30-45 Chum Street Golden Square –Fortuna Villa and Garden. It includes, external paint colour controls, tree controls, and outbuilding and fence controls. While the property remained in Commonwealth ownership, it could not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register despite a nomination having been received from the Department of Defence in preparation for the site disposal. Heritage Victoria has assessed the nomination and is expected to advertise the Executive Director’s recommendation on or shortly after the date of settlement. The advertising period is 60 days during which submissions can be received relating to the significance of the property, the proposed extent of registration and any proposed permit exemptions. We understand Heritage Victoria would act to protect the nomination by placing an Interim Protection Order, if there was any threat to the property through actions such as inappropriate demolition. The site is also given protection during this period prior to inclusion of the Victorian Heritage Register through the Heritage Overlay, although this does not cover interiors.


PAGE 99

Report

Key Issues for the Future of Fortuna 1. Zoning The land is currently zoned predominantly Public Use Zone 7 (Other Public Use) with part of the site Special Use Zone and a small area Residential 1 Zone. The site will have to be rezoned before any new use can occur. The City of Greater Bendigo’s position on rezoning, provided in writing as part of the sale process is:

“Fortuna is a very important and significant asset for the City and the community. The City strongly supports the protection, conservation and contemporary reuse of the heritage assets, including an appropriate curtilage. This objective is the highest priority for the City - it does not have a definite position on uses which might or might not be appropriate. The City is currently guided by the Heritage Management Plan prepared by Godden Mackay Logan, Heritage Consultants. The City is in the process of further considering and formalising its position on the Heritage Management Plan. While the underlying zoning of the site is clearly residential, in general terms the City would support a zoning that resulted in this very significant property being well used into the future. This might include residential, cultural, commercial, educational or some form of special use. It is hard to imagine that an industrial use would be suitable. The particulars of any proposal, and the degree to which it delivers good outcomes for the City, will determine the degree of support of Council at the appropriate time. Obviously a formal Planning Scheme Amendment rezoning process would be required.”

2. Heritage Values The heritage values of Fortuna will be managed by Heritage Victoria (HV) (through registration on the Victorian Heritage Register) once it passes out of Commonwealth ownership. City of Greater Bendigo and the Council will be given opportunity to comment at the time of registration. There will also be opportunities for input into permit policy and permit exemptions at that time. Once the site is on the Victorian Heritage Register, any permit application for the site will automatically be referred to the City for comment. (The City’s comments will be considered but are not binding). 3. Contamination A contamination report or Environmental Site Contamination Assessment (ESA) was commissioned by the Commonwealth as part of its due diligence in the disposal of the site. The two stage assessment identified soil contamination mainly associated with the site’s previous mining activities. In particular, widespread elevated levels of arsenic concentrations associated with mining waste on the site were detected. As a result of the contamination issues, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was also commissioned in January 2009. This report concluded that the site (including the villa and surrounds) was not suitable for on-site residents with garden and accessible soil (eg vegetable gardens), but that a large part of the site was suitable for on-site residents with minimal soil access and on-site recreational users.


PAGE 100

While not a focus of this report, the contamination issues at Fortuna will have a major impact on the possible use/s of the site and opportunities for development through either the cost of clean-up or limiting potential uses. The contamination issues will be managed by the State’s Environment Protection Authority, EPA. 4. Use of the Site While Heritage Victoria will have the main statutory role in managing the heritage values of the site, the Heritage Act does not control use, and what uses are appropriate or allowed. The future use/s will also be affected by the contamination issues. The City of Greater Bendigo will have the primary statutory role in controlling the use/s of the site through zoning. This is not the focus of this report. (A separate report on the zoning issues will be prepared once the intentions of the new owner are clarified and the owner is ready to proceed) 5. Development Controls HV will have the main statutory role in assessing and permitting subdivision and development. The City and Council will have opportunity to provide comment. The Heritage Management Plan will no doubt have a major guiding role in this process. The CoGB could approach Heritage Victoria with a view to jointly commissioning development guidelines. (The suggestion of development guidelines arose from the external targeted consultation).

Decision Responsibility Process

Rezoning, applying overlays and use of the site

City of Greater Bendigo

Planning Scheme Amendment & Planning Permit.

Listing on the Victorian Heritage Register

Heritage Victoria

Demolition or alteration to existing buildings or grounds and construction of new buildings.in the area covered by the HV registration

Heritage Victoria HV Permit

Demolition or alteration to existing buildings or grounds and construction of new buildings in the area NOT covered by the HV registration

City of Greater Bendigo

Planning Permit

Subdivision Heritage Victoria & City of Greater Bendigo

HV Permit

Heritage Values The Commonwealth has commissioned two detailed heritage assessments on Fortuna, one in 2002 and a second one in 2009. The scope of both studies was the conservation of Fortuna, without consideration of future use.


PAGE 101

One of the most important issues for our City is having Fortuna used in a contemporary way, rather than having it languish unused behind locked gates. It is therefore recommended that Council use these reports as a basis for decision making but focus more strongly on an enabling framework so that a future use of Fortuna is facilitated. The 2009 Heritage Management Plan (HMP) was prepared by Godden Mackay Logan in accordance with best heritage practice and in accordance with the Burra Charter which has been generally adopted throughout Australia to guide heritage identification and management. The HMP provided the following conclusions of historical, physical and comparative analysis of Fortuna:

Fortuna is an important cultural landscape in the Victorian context. It is representative of historical phases through its association with the gold rush which was significant in the development and settlement of Bendigo and through to its continued use by Defence from 1942;

The gold mining period is dominated by George Lansell’s occupation of Fortuna. There is a substantial amount of extant fabric related to this period, including specimen plantings, and the external fabric of the mining activities, such as the former battery building and the currently in disrepair Roman Bath;

The “bush block” has been nominated by the Dja Dja Wurrung representatives as an area of unknown archaeological potential and therefore is of unknown significance. The entire Fortuna site has the potential to yield remains or artefacts, relating to the historical use and development of this site; and

Defence’s association with the site, particularly the cartographic and printing processes undertaken during World War II played a major part in the site’s history. Fortuna was the only home of the Army Survey Regiment. DIGO continued its work on the site and there are strong historical connections between both organisations and Fortuna.

The HMP also provides a policy framework and recommendations for the management of the heritage assets. The HMP is expected to be used as a critical management tool for the site for the future and is likely to be used by Heritage Victoria as a basis for permit policy. (The full report is available on the website: www.fortunavilla.net.au)

http://www.fortunavilla.net.au/


PAGE 102

Comment on the Assessment of Significance

Figure 3: Aerial of the Site 2012


PAGE 103

Figure 4: Significance of Built Elements from the HMP

The relative levels of significance for the built elements identified in the 2009 HMP are outlined in the diagram above. The assessment of significance has implications for the retention and management. A translation of the implications is approximately: High heritage significance = restoration with some potential for adaptive reuse Moderate heritage significance = conserve - interior available for adaptive reuse Some heritage significance = adaptive re-use Neutral heritage significance = adaptively reused or removed Intrusive element = should be removed There are also separate diagrams for landscape, trees, and archaeology. These have not been included as the recommendations do not have such critical implications.


PAGE 104

Figure 5: Constraints and Opportunities Diagram from the 2009 HMP


PAGE 105

Earlier Heritage Assessments A comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CMP) was undertaken in 2002 by Allom Lovell and Associates. There are substantial differences between the earlier (2002) heritage assessment and the one currently incorporated in the Heritage Management Plan. The main differences are summarised below:

Key Landscape Areas / Key

Built Elements 2002 Report (CMP) 2009 Report (HMP)

Buildings coloured red 6,7,8a, 8d, 17, 18, 57,59 1861-1942 The Villa

Primary significance. High significance Conserve, retain, restore.

Buildings coloured orange 3, 8b, 8c, 8f, 8g, 14 (except for 8e which is associated with the Villa period above) 1942-1960

Primary with alterations. 8f 8g, little or no significance.

Moderate heritage significance. Conserve with adaptive reuse of interiors necessary for new use

Buildings coloured blue- 19, 20, 21,22, 23 1960-1986

These were identified as intrusive. No restrictions on future use/demolition. The buildings were described as visually intrusive when viewed from the west side of the lake and “preferably demolished”.

These buildings have been identified in the assessment part of the document as being of “some significance”. The above diagram suggests they could be ”adaptively re-used. Potential additions to the rear of buildings, could be allowed. The spaces between the buildings could be retained. Any re-building or new development should not exceed the existing height of the buildings”.


PAGE 106

Key Landscape Areas / Key

Built Elements 2002 Report (CMP) 2009 Report (HMP)

Buildings coloured green 10,12 16, 16A, 30 1986-present

Little or no significance.

Neutral heritage significance.- Could either be adaptively reused or removed. Ideally buildings 10 and 12 should be removed and redevelopment of a single storey building which is generally on the footprint of building 10 could be constructed. A new single storey building which is complimentary to the Villa could be constructed.

Recreation Landscape Basketball Court, Tennis Court, Cricket practice wicket

Recreational facilities of no individual significance No restrictions on future use/demolition

Landscape high significance, recreational facilities some significance. Should be conserved allowing for opportunities for renewed recreational activities which do not involve construction of new buildings.

Curtilage and subdivision

“Recognising the importance of the place as defined by its current title boundaries…it is considered that it is appropriate that the current title boundaries be treated as the extent of heritage curtilage…” No specific statement on subdivision, but recognition of the importance of the site as it exists at present.

The heritage significance of the whole site warrants retention as a single cultural landscape because of the integrity of the historic allotments. It also acknowledges that any future subdivision would have a heritage impact on the values of Fortuna as a whole.

Reasons for the Difference- Social Value The main reasons for the difference in the assessment of significance outlined in the above table, appears to be that the later assessment gave greater weight to the period of Defence occupation. Social values arising from Defence occupation is a measure of the special meanings and associations a place may have for particular groups of people. Social value is one of the criteria used to assess cultural heritage significance.


PAGE 107

This assessment came from discussion with groups including: Bendigo Historical Society, the National Trust of Australia (Bendigo Branch), the Fortuna Historical Society and the Ex Fortuna Association. The assessment identified there is very strong support in the stakeholder groups for the conservation of Fortuna as a whole and of the heritage values from all periods of occupation. The stakeholder groups were also concerned to ensure the ongoing security of the site and the need for it to be used and occupied. The range of stakeholders consulted as part the assessment of Social Value in the HMP agreed that the future development of the site was possible but within appropriate guidelines to protect the layout and landscape of the place, most importantly the villa and the lake. Redevelopment of the site was supported where development as appropriate to the heritage values and with the scope to provide revenue with which to properly maintain the villa and landscape. Implications The main implications in the differences are the impact of the much greater weight given to the Defence buildings around the parade ground, and the recreational landscape. This could affect future development of these parts of the site. Given the high heritage significance of the rest of the site, it will make realising the potential of the site even more difficult. The Fortuna Coalition and the HMP The Fortuna Coalition (FC) is a body comprising three incorporated community groups - Villa Fortuna Action Group, Bendigo Historical Society, and Friends of Fortuna. In December 2012 the FC published a document to explain the HMP entitled “ ‘An HMP awareness’, Fortuna’s Heritage Management Plan” to promote greater awareness of the existence and importance of the HMP, and an understanding of the significance that has been attached to this HMP by the Commonwealth. In this document the FC explain what the HMP is and conclude by saying:

“The Fortuna Coalition supports the existing Heritage Management Plan as a guiding document concerning the heritage values of Fortuna. What is written in these few pages shows that there are some identifiable themes that are repeatedly referred to within the HMP. These are seen as significant statements of the heritage importance of Fortuna to the city, the state and the Australian nation. The broad intent expressed in the HMP is one that calls for the widest possible community and political support. The Fortuna Coalition believes that for the sake of future generations the recommendations advocated by the HMP need to be strengthened by a formal inclusion of some form of legal Covenant that embraces a heritage management plan and will then accompany Fortuna's Title.3”

3 Fortuna Coalition ‘An HMP Awareness’ Fortuna’s Heritage Management Plan, December 2012


PAGE 108

The Fortuna Coalition see the following themes as important:

1. The integrity of the whole Chum Street property 2. The ‘heritage values’ of the site 3. The Villa and associated structures 4. The garden and landscape 5. The on-going ‘interpretation’ of Fortuna 6. Constraints and opportunities in utilising the site. Interpretation and Community Engagement One of the key objectives outlined in the HMP is to ‘Tell the story’ of Fortuna as part of a future use. The 2 policies in this section are:

Include interpretation through conservation works-Conservation methods including restoration and adaptive re-use are preferred ways of interpreting the site’s heritage values.

Implement ongoing interpretation at the site through the development of an Interpretation Strategy.

The recommended actions include:

Ensuring change at the does not impede the ability to tell the story of Fortuna.

Considering ways in which a change of use or new development can involve members of the public.

Considering allowing public access annually or at least occasionally.

Ensuring all periods of historic use at Fortuna are interpreted both physically and through other means such as signage and graphics.

Interpretation or telling the story of Fortuna, community engagement and some public access are important and have been included in the possible council objectives for the site. However, adaptive re-use of some of the later Defence buildings may not be necessary to “tell the story”. Council Position Given all the above, Council should adopt objectives for the site which then guide Council’s position on the heritage values. 1. Statement of Council objectives for the site

The objectives (to inform policy) stated in the HMP are:

To ensure a future use is complementary to the heritage values of Fortuna

To respond appropriately to the site’s cultural landscape heritage values for future development related to a new use for the site

To manage the heritage values of the cultural landscape and its elements within an appropriate setting.

To undertake site investigation, research and documentation of Fortuna

To ‘Tell the story’ of Fortuna as part of a future use

To manage the archaeological resource of Fortuna in the future.


PAGE 109

The second report commissioned by the Federal Government had the purpose of “conservation”. While in strong agreement with most of the HMP, it is recommended that Council sets objectives for the site that have a stronger emphasis on contemporary reuse. This will assist in enabling a future use, rather than the site languishing, possibly for many years. Suggested Council objectives for the site are:

Retain and interpret the heritage values of the site for future generations

Support contemporary and creative re-use of the site

Facilitate appropriate re-development of the site

Ensure any development is economically viable and sustainable in the long term

Optimise public/community benefits and access from the development of the site 2. Where it is recommended that Council take a different position to the 2009 HMP The only areas where it is recommended Council take a slightly different position to the 2009 report are:

The Defence buildings and recreation area (blue and orange areas of the map);

The possibility of subdivision and protection of curtilage. The weight given to the Defence period of the site in the HMP Recommended Council position:

In recognition of the importance of goldmining as a theme in the history of Greater Bendigo, and while recognising the importance of all periods of development of the Fortuna site, that in policies for its future management, less emphasis be placed on the physical evidence of the later Defence buildings, while ensuring there is adequate interpretation of this important period. Reason: The draft Greater Bendigo Thematic Environmental History was adopted by Council on 2012. As stated in the Introduction:

“The greater weight given to particular themes also reflects the importance of these themes in terms of the evolution and development of the municipal area-gold mining being an obvious example. Without due recognition given to more important themes, the value of the heritage places associated with these themes may not be fully understood. Lesser known themes, however, are also explored, helping to reveal the complex layering of culture, society, economy and industry over the landscape of Greater Bendigo.”

Under the detailed discussion of this theme

“By 1903 Australia was the largest single producer of gold in the world, with the Bendigo goldfield producing 22 million ounces in the period 1851-1951. This makes Bendigo the second largest gold production field in Australia behind Kalgoorlie’s Golden Mile.”


PAGE 110

Defence (or army/military), on the other hand, does not have specific coverage in the Thematic Environmental History, and the only substantial mention of defence is in relation to the Ordnance site (now Thales) in North Bendigo. Given the relative importance of the theme of goldmining to Greater Bendigo, it is justifiable that the importance of this theme in relation to Fortuna be given greater weight in the assessment of its cultural heritage significance than its Defence history. This would then affect the relative weight given to the future management of the different components of the site. Obviously the significant period of occupation by the army and DIGO should not be ignored and it is more a matter of the extent of what building fabric is required to be kept for the future and how this may impact on the Council’s objectives for the site. The long association with Defence and the specialised survey and mapping activities undertaken at Fortuna were critically important in defence capability, and were technologically advanced at an international level. It is recommended this element be retained through interpretation, rather than retaining the actual building fabric (an example is the interpretation in the forecourt and laneways under the Bendigo Bank). 3. Curtilage and possible future subdivision Recommended Council position:

Council supports the proposed extent of registration or curtilage as being the whole of the site. Council may support subdivision provided it was demonstrated to be necessary to meet the Council’s objectives for the site, and provided there was a viable development plan for the whole of the site. Reason: Both the studies commissioned by the Commonwealth recognise the importance of the whole site, but the later report states that subdivision would impact the heritage values of the site as a whole. The earlier report emphasises the importance of a buffer zone around the most significant area of the site. If and when listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, Heritage Victoria would need to assess the impact of subdivision, taking into account the economic arguments. The potential restriction on future opportunities for subdivision may significantly impact on the attractiveness and economic viability of the site, and as a result limit the ability to meet the Council’s objectives for the site (if adopted as above). However, regardless of the heritage values, the topography of the site will also impact on the ability for any future subdivision.


PAGE 111

The recommended position means Council would not support piecemeal carving off of pieces of the site, but might support subdivision where there is a comprehensive plan that is supported by the subdivision. The City would not allow bit-by-bit subdivision of the site. (A local example of subdivision of part of a site to enable economically viable development of the rest is St Aidan’s). 4. Key Landscape / Built Elements The following table summarises the recommendations of the key landscape/built elements and the recommended Council position.

Key landscape areas/key built

elements

2002 Report (CMP)

2009 Report (HMP)

Recommended Council Position

Villa landscape / main villa buildings. Some post 1986 Defence buildings

Villa and Villa Garden restored. Southern driveway area keep free of new development.

Villa and Villa garden restored. No development Chum Hill Post 1986 buildings re-used or removed

Same as HMP

Recreational landscape including tennis / basketball, cricket facilities, 3 main Defence buildings

Recreational facilities- no restriction on future use/demolition. Retain Building 3 No restrictions on Buildings 1 and 4 re future use or demolition.

Should be conserved, renewed recreational activities, no buildings. Adapt and re-use existing buildings.

Some renewed recreational facilities, some new buildings beyond tennis court. Retain Building 3 (P1 Hut)

Army accommodation precinct

Land should be part of buffer zone, buildings intrusive and should be removed. New development single storey, screened and set behind ridgeline.

Buildings could be adaptively re-used, additions to rear, spaces between buildings retained.

1960s Defence buildings interpreted rather than retained. Some scope for sensitive low scale development subject to careful consideration of view lines from lake.


PAGE 112

Key landscape areas/key built

elements

2002 Report (CMP)

2009 Report (HMP)

Recommended Council Position

Bush block precinct/some later post 1986 Defence buildings

Bush block not covered. Recommends removal of prominent buildings and wire fence along the ridgeline.

Potential for redevelopment, subject to archaeological/indigenous issues

Same as HMP

Priority/Importance: The importance of adopting a position on the recommendation in the HMP of Fortuna is to ensure that Council has a clear, strong position to put to the Heritage Victoria process and any potential purchasers and can have a more active role in facilitating the best outcome for the site for the City of Greater Bendigo. The Department of Defence is still intending to finalise the sale this year. Risk Analysis: The HMP has been prepared after extensive research, physical investigation but only limited community consultation. It has been endorsed or accepted by the Department of Defence (as it was part of the sale documents), the Fortuna Coalition, and has been undertaken in accordance with professional heritage practice. However, some of the recommendations could limit the economical viability and sustainable use of the site. The contamination issues limit the options for future use and possibly have major economic implications. There is a risk that this important site could languish without a use. Alternatively, an exciting development bringing economic, community and heritage benefits could result from an appropriate and creative new use for the site. The site has great potential to further the Councils reputation/track record in recognising the value of heritage to Greater Bendigo through Council’s support for its important heritage sites, from the grand public and gold Boom style commercial buildings, to its poppet heads, historic tramways, and modest miner's cottages. If Council does not take a pro-active role, it could lose the opportunity to facilitate appropriate use and development of the site.


PAGE 113


External Consultation: The HMP was limited in the consultation undertaken, and only consulted with limited interest groups. The City held targeted consultation by meeting with the owner, and with groups and individuals who know the site well through a workshop. In addition to this meeting, Daryl McClure and Rick Walduck were provided with copies of the draft Council position, due to their deep involvement and interest in the site prior to the sale. The comments provided as a result of this consultation are summarised below:

SUBMISSION RESPONSE

Daryl McClure 2/6/2013

The report provides a comprehensive overview.

Ongoing protection of Fortuna would have benefited from a strong position statement by Council prior to sale.

Very real risk of inappropriate development given financial pressure.

Hopes that development will be sensitive, limited and the design carefully vetted.

The submission supports the draft position, no change necessary.

Fortuna Coalition 12/6/2013

Strongly support approach to achieve balance.


Potential demolition of certain Defence-era buildings

Supports the [draft] position of Council regarding its policy concerning these Defence-era buildings, and believes this to be within the framework of the present HMP.

Any alteration or replacement of Booth Street frontage or Chum Street-Booth Street corner needs highest architectural standards to ensure sympathetic treatment particularly in respect of view lines from the villa and the lake.



PAGE 114

Council’s role in zoning and the development/subdivision of the site HMP recognises that development/subdivision may be allowable through following some principles. ie. where there is a comprehensive plan and a viable development plan for the whole of the site. Supports this approach.


Zoning Believes zoning should be focused on in the report.

A separate detailed report on zoning will be prepared for Council. Premature to consider zoning at this stage, when future intent and use of the site is so uncertain.

Inter-relationships between CoGB and HV Wants greater clarity as to the interrelationships and decision making between the 2 bodies.

CoGB to write to HV to request close working relationship over Fortuna, and nominated contact person for ongoing discussions future management of the site.

There should be maximum flexibility in the draft guidelines for development that does not impinge on the overall site quality- this could include broader consideration of the recreation area and possibly, the Chum Hill area.

Heritage advisor does not support development of the Chum Hill area (not supported in HMP), but agrees with some development potential of the recreation area.

Recognition of new owner’s responsibilities under the sale agreement

Concern that only the first owner is required to recognize the HMP following the sale process.

Draft Council position needs to be more forthright in promotion of the HMP and requests a stronger expression of the importance of the HMP.

A statement in support of the HMP generally has been included in the revised recommendations.

Consideration of internal fabric of Fortuna Villa

Suggest amendment to HO434 to cover internal alterations to add strength to HV involvement.

Requests CoGB demonstrate a greater interest and responsibility towards internal fabric of the villa building.

CoGB will have the ability to respond to any permit involving internal changes through the automatic referral of all HV permit applications.

Role of the Council in assessing ‘viability’ of uses for the site In the proposed objectives for the site,

The comment is in relation to the objective to “ensure any development is economically viable and sustainable in


PAGE 115

concern that CoGB, in desiring a viable commercial outcome may be exceeding its statutory planning role. They propose that the word “ensure” is amended to suggest that the issue of viability is one that would be encouraged through consultation and support so that “the Council is not seen as dictating commercial judgement”.

the long term”. This is different from a “viable commercial outcome”. The first objective in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is “to provide for the air, orderly, economic, and sustainable use, and development of land”. The proposed Fortuna objective in its current form would seem to reflect this objective in the Act. No change recommended.

Comments and critique of the structure and purpose of the document as presented at the meeting. Document needs to be updated to reflect current situation- ie. it has been sold. Document discusses external consultation.

Completed.

Bendigo Historical Society

Suggests interpretative signs on the following:

The site before mining

The Ballerstedts

George Lansell

Edward Dyason (Lansell Manager)

Edith Lansell and children

Disputes between George Lansell and miners

Life of miners

The famous Illuminated letter

The building and architecture of the Villa

The period after the death of George Lansell-the auctions

The Mapmakers

DIGO & end of era.

Interpretation could be required by Heritage Victoria as part of the permit process. In any submission by CoGB to Heritage Victoria as a result of the referral of an application to develop or subdivide the site, this interpretative proposal will be recommended as a suggested condition on any major permit.

Pat Thwaites, Friends of Fortuna

Corrections to building numbers- incorrect numbers in various documents

Building 10 should be building 3, and Building 12 should be 14.

Definition of “bush Block”.

Bush block in diagrams includes other elements such as part of car park and Buildings 16 and 16A.

Peppercorn trees lining the driveway have some significance.

Building 16 is significant in Defence

CoGB cannot change documents prepared by others. Details have been forwarded to Heritage Victoria to be included in the heritage registration.


PAGE 116

heritage.

Defence Heritage Not enough emphasis has been placed in heritage assessments of Defence’s occupation of the site.

The HMP has a strong emphasis on Defence heritage. No change recommended.

Rod Spitty, Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) 24/5/2013

Workshop was terrific, and could be used as a model for future targeted community engagement.

Property controls should have Statement of Significance and design development guidelines and statement of neighbourhood character.

Contamination could be addressed in the guidelines.

CoGB could consider commissioning design guidelines, possibly jointly with Heritage Victoria at a later date, possibly as part of the zoning process.

Dr Diana Smith, HAC 14 June 2013

The HMP prepared by Godden McKay Logan lacks advice on legislative requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

If any Aboriginal cultural heritage values are uncovered, discovered or come to light a report must be provided to Secretary of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV).

Statements of strong support for the draft position were received from 3 other HAC members.

Owner should be made aware of responsibilities under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. CoGB to advise owner contact AAV.

Paul Banks, owner, 5 June 2013

At this stage of thinking, would prefer not to retain P1 huts.

The huts heritage significance as part of the early Army occupation of the site is supported by the Conservation Management Plan by Lovell Chen 2002 and the 2009 HMP. The draft position supports their significance and retention. This will be an issue for Heritage Victoria at either the registration or permit process. No change recommended.

Planning to retain the later Defence buildings around the Parade Ground and upgrade externally.

Not an issue. The draft position is that these don’t need to be retained, but could be interpreted. Retention is also supported in this position.

At this stage of thinking, disagrees with the position on Chum Hill, ie. no

The “no development on Chum Hill” is the proposal in the HMP. Chum Hill


PAGE 117

development on the Chum Hill part of the site.

forms a backdrop to the Villa, and any development on Chum Hill will have a negative impact on the setting of the Villa. This will be an issue for Heritage Victoria to determine in the future. No change recommended.

Wants to do immediate works on settlement including:

Tree removal in the vicinity of the Pompeii Fountain

External painting of Villa

Fencing around Villa

Internal removal of more recent Defence alterations to Villa considered unsightly/inappropriate.

These are being negotiated with Heritage Victoria. Some works may need to be subject of a planning application if the listing on the Victorian Heritage Register has not been finalised. Any inappropriate works will trigger an Interim Protection Order. No change recommended.

Preliminary ideas involve subdivision. Any subdivision should be tested against the proposed Council objectives, and should be considered as part of a holistic development proposal for the site. Piecemeal subdivision would not be supported. Subdivision of the bush block could be acceptable, as it is not currently part of the Heritage Overlay and is not included in the nomination for the Victorian Heritage Register.

Internal Consultation: Some preliminary internal consultation was undertaken with staff from Building and Property, Strategy and Statutory planning units prior to the draft position paper being prepared.


Community consultation regarding a possible Council position on the future management of Fortuna would have staff time implications.

Conclusion

It would be beneficial for the Council to make a strong statement regarding its desired objectives for the site, and positions on some of the later defence period buildings and facilities, as well as possible curtilage and future subdivision opportunities. This could reduce the risk of the site languishing unused, and indicate the Council’s willingness to facilitate the best possible outcome for the site.


PAGE 118

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve the following: 1. Council objectives for the Fortuna site are to:

o Retain and interpret the heritage values of the site for future generations

o Support contemporary and creative re-use of the site

o Facilitate appropriate re-development of the site

o Ensure any development is economically viable and sustainable in the long

term

o Optimise public/community benefits and access from the development of the

site 2. In recognition of the importance of goldmining as a theme in the history of Greater

Bendigo, and while recognising the importance of all periods of development of the Fortuna site, that in policies for its future management, less emphasis be placed of the physical evidence of the later Defence buildings, while ensuring there is adequate interpretation of this important period.

3. Council supports the proposed extent of registration or curtilage as being the whole of

the site. Council may support subdivision provided it was demonstrated to be necessary to meet the Council’s objectives for the site, and provided there was a viable development plan for the whole of the site.

4. Council generally supports the Heritage Management Plan prepared by Godden

McKay Logan as a document to guide decision making on site, with the following exceptions. Areas outlined in the HMP Constraints and opportunities diagram where the Council position differs from the HMP are outlined below:

Recreational landscape: Council position: Some renewed recreational facilities, some new buildings beyond tennis court. Retain Building 3 (P1 Hut) Army accommodation precinct: Council position: 1960s Defence buildings interpreted rather than retained. Some scope for sensitive low scale development subject to careful consideration of view lines from lake.


PAGE 119

5.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - COMMUNITY MEMBER APPOINTMENTS


Author Anthony Sheean, Senior Environment Officer, Sustainable Environment Unit

Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

This report outlines a recent expression of interest process seeking community representatives to be appointed to the City of Greater Bendigo Natural Environment Advisory Committee. The report recommends the appointment of 9 community members to the Committee.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 Theme 5: Good Governance and Decision Making Strategic objective 5.3 – We engage effectively and often with our communities, through excellent customer service and by providing information to enable people to take part in decisions about the changes.


The Natural Environment Advisory Committee was established in 1995 to provide the best possible advice to Council on how to conserve, enhance and promote places of environmental significance in the municipality. Council considered and adopted a revised Committee terms of reference at its ordinary meeting on Wednesday 17 April, 2013. The terms of reference provides the governance framework in which the Committee operates and ensures that the Committee maintains its relevance and is well positioned to represent the community and provide advice to Council on strategic issues of relevance.


PAGE 120

Report

The terms of community members of the Natural Environment Advisory Committee expired in early 2013 and following a review and adoption of the Committee terms of reference, an expression of interest process was conducted for new community members for a term of 3 years. Up to ten positions were available. Ten expressions of interests were received, however one withdrew due to personal commitments. The following nine people submitted an expression of interest: Wendy Radford – retiring member renominating Lydia Fehring – retiring member renominating David Conley – retiring member renominating Colin Smith – new nomination Kathryn Stanislawski – new nomination Phillipa Doyle – new nomination Joel North – new nomination Karen Corr – new nomination Kia Smith – new nomination Expressions of interest were received in writing outlining the individual’s relevant interests, experience and qualifications. A joint interview process was conducted which was chaired by Councillor Rod Fyffe and attended by Robyn Major, Manager Sustainable Environment Unit and Anthony Sheean, Senior Environment Officer. The applicants were deemed to have fulfilled the selection criteria as outlined in the Committee terms of reference; they provide an excellent mix of experience and qualifications and importantly, community and industry networks and contacts.


Internal Consultation: Advice on the selection and appointment process was sought from the Manager Executive Services. External Consultation: A public advertisement process was conducted over a four week period which included all major print media, including community newsletters. A media release was also distributed and was included on the City’s website and social media. The City’s Senior Environment Officer answered enquiries from the general community during the expression of interest period.


PAGE 121


There is no resource implication associated with this report.

Conclusion

The Natural Environment Advisory Committee provides an important community engagement and advisory role to Council. In line with the Committee’s terms of reference, an expression of interest process was conducted to appoint new community representatives to the Committee for a three year term. Nine expressions of interests were received, all meeting the relevant selection criteria. The nine applicants represent a high quality group which, it is believed, will provide excellent advice and support to Council on matters relevant to the natural environment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoint Wendy Radford, Lydia Fehring, David Conley, Colin Smith, Kathryn Stanislawski, Phillipa Doyle, Joel North, Karen Corr and Kia Smith as community representatives on the City of Greater Bendigo Natural Environment Advisory Committee for the period of three years.

Good Governance and Decision Making - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2013

PAGE 122

6. GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DECISION MAKING

6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION


Author Leeanne Taig, Administration Assistant, Project Coordination Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organisation Support Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under delegation.

Policy Context

Provide high quality professional services by undertaking responsible business planning to ensure long-term sustainability.

Report

The following contracts subject to public tender, have been issued under delegation by the officer as listed (Instrument of Delegation - August 5, 2009):

Contract No

Project Successful Contractor

Value (GST Excl)

Delegated Officer

Date Signed

CT000044 Supply & Delivery of one (1) Wheel Loader

CJD Equipment Pty Ltd

287,655.00 Darren Fuzzard

24 May 2013

CT000052 Retaining Wall Restoration Bendigo Creek

Gerard K House 350,724.00 Darren Fuzzard

13 June 2013

CT000050 Construction of Lorient Park Basin Maiden Gully

Lyons Construction Pty Ltd

136,613.46 Richard Morrison

7 June 2013

CT000062 Golden Square Pony Club

KBD Constructions

103838.56 Richard Morrison

19 June 2013

CT000053 Eaglehawk Mechanics Institute Accessible Works

KBD Constructions

78,365.00 Richard Morrison

19 June 2013

CT000056 Maintenance Services for Backflow Prevention Devise

Regional Air Conditioning & Electrical Pty Ltd

3,675.00 Prue Mansfield

20 June 2013


PAGE 123

RECOMMENDATION

That the Contracts Award Under Delegation, as outlined in this report, be endorsed by Council.

Contract No

Project Successful Contractor

Value (GST Excl)

Delegated Officer

Date Signed

CT000030

Approved Top Soil, Ground Cover and Special Application Materials

Allstone Quarries DJ & JM Fitt Pty Ltd Epsom Sand & Soil Pty Ltd EMM Group Pty Ltd

Schedule of Rates

Darren Fuzzard

25 June 2013


PAGE 124

6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES


Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.

Policy Context

The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.


The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where conflicts of interest must be disclosed. A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is: 1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a

member of Council staff; or 2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present. The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.


PAGE 125

Report

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date 5 June 2013

Matters discussed 1. Proposed development at Epsom 2. Wolstencroft Reserve 3. Shortfall associated with childcare fees 4. Costing of maintaining the QEO 5. O'Keefe Trail costs and income 6. List of major infrastructure projects not funded 7. Constitutional recognition of Local Government 8. Complaints handling procedure 9. Report on Council Plan actions 10. Catering and printing 11. Botanic Gardens 12. Epsom Huntly Recreation Reserve 13. Aquatic Centre 14. Proposed visit to Geelong 15. Woodvale ponds/groundwater 16. Container deposit legislation 17. Houses being flooded 18. Dower Park 19. Urban Stormwater Management Plan 20. Supply of Industrial Land 21. Residential Strategy

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams

Staff/ Community Representatives

Mr Craig Niemann Ms Prue Mansfield Ms Pauline Gordon Mr Stan Liacos Ms Marg Allan Mr Darren Fuzzard Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell

Conflict of Interest disclosures

Matter No.

Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting

Nil


PAGE 126

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Councillors' Forum


Matters discussed 1. Inspection of the Restored Historic Furniture in Bendigo Town Hall 2. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Meeting agenda 3. Outdoor Dining Code of Practice 4. Presentation on the Bendigo Stadium Master Plan 5. Eaglehawk Ward Meeting 6. Review of the CBD Plan 7. Ewing Park 8. Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 9. Meeting with Shire of Campaspe 10. Domestic Animal Management Plan 11. Funding Agreement for Street Lighting

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Apologies: Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams


Mr Craig Niemann Ms Prue Mansfield Ms Pauline Gordon Mr Stan Liacos Ms Marg Allan Mr Darren Fuzzard Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell


Matter No.

Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left meeting

Nil


PAGE 127

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Heritage Advisory Committee (site visit to Bendigo Gasworks)


Matters discussed 1. Site visit to Bendigo Gasworks

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Peter Cox Cr Helen Leach


Steven Abbott Emma Bryant Megan McDougall Dannielle Orr Helen Ashby David Bannear Mikelle Dingwall Elaine Doling Jordan Grenfell Dennis O'Hoy Tom Seddon Darren Wright


Matter No.

Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting

Nil


PAGE 128

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Heritage Advisory Committee


Matters discussed 1. Villa Fortuna 2. Expenditure of HAC Budget 3. Planning update: Demolitions 4. Heritage Restoration Loan Scheme 5. Strategy Update: Heritage Awards 2013 6. White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study 7. Thematic Environmental History 8. Boundary stones

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Peter Cox Apology: Cr Mark Weragoda


Emma Bryant Megan McDougall Dannielle Orr Helen Ashby David Bannear Elaine Doling Peter Ellis Jordan Grenfell Darren Wright Apologies: Laurie Brown Kay MacGregor David Mulqueen Di Smith Rod Spitty Norm Stimson


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 129

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Consultation Meeting


Matters discussed 1. Planning application DR/141/2013: Construction of a Dwelling at 99 Both Street, Golden Square

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Barry Lyons Apologies: Cr Elise Chapman Cr Rod Fyffe


Peter O'Brien Applicant Objectors


Matter No. Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting Nil

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Consultation Meeting

Meeting Date 17 May 2013

Matters discussed 1. Planning application DSD/743/2012: 5-Lot Subdivision of land and development of 4 dwellings and removal of native vegetation (9 scattered trees) at 48 and Lot 4 Queen Street, Mandurang South

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Elise Chapman Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Barry Lyons


Peter O'Brien Applicant Objectors


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 130

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type



Matters discussed 1. Planning application DS/312/2013: 2-Lot Subdivision at 12 Aurora Place, Epsom

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Peter Cox Apologies: Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr James Williams


Liz Commadeur Applicant Objectors


Matter No.


Nil

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type



Matters discussed Planning Application DS/305/2013

Staged subdivision of the land into 14 lots and removal of one

native tree - revised plan Version B at 9 Club Court,

Strathfieldsaye

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Rod Campbell

Cr Helen Leach

Apologies:

Cr Mark Weragoda

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Stephen Wainwright

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.

Councillor/representative making

disclosure

Councillor/representative

left meeting

Nil


PAGE 131

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type



Matters discussed Planning Application DS/926/2012

Staged subdivision of land into 11 lots, the removal of native

vegetation, and variation to a carriageway easement at 80

Sullivans Road, Strathfieldsaye

Attendees/Apologies


Cr Helen Leach

Apologies:

Cr Mark Weragoda

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Stephen Wainwright

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type



Matters discussed Planning Application DSD/132/2013

4 lot subdivision and construction of 3 dwellings at 20 Dowding

Street, California Gully

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Peter Cox

Cr James Williams

Apologies:

Cr Lisa Ruffell

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Bryce Kilian

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil


PAGE 132

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type



Matters discussed Planning Application DR/230/2013

Partial demolition and extension to existing dwelling at 116 –

118 Bridge Street, Bendigo

Attendees/Apologies


Cr James Williams

Cr Lisa Ruffell

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Simon Francis

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type


Meeting Date 23 April 2013


Re-subdivision of land, demolition of outbuildings and fences,

development of dwelling, carport fences and construction of

works (earthworks and retaining walls) at 70 Barkly Street,

Bendigo

Attendees/Apologies


Cr James Williams

Apologies:

Cr Lisa Ruffell

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Peter O’Brien

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil


PAGE 133

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type




3 lot subdivision and construction of 3 dwellings at 20 Plante

Court, Strathdale

Attendees/Apologies


Cr Helen Leach

Cr Mark Weragoda

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Peter Hargreaves

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil

Meeting Information

Meeting

Name/Type



Matters discussed Planning application DC/85/2013

Construction of a radio antenna at 51 Creek Street South,

Bendigo

Attendees/Apologies


Apologies:

Cr James Williams

Cr Lisa Ruffell

Staff/

Community

Representatives

Frank Casimir

Chris Duckett

Applicant

Objectors


Matter

No.


disclosure


left meeting

Nil


PAGE 134

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.


PAGE 135

7. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.

8. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

10. MAYOR'S REPORT

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

12.1 Contractual Matter

RECOMMENDATION

That the meeting be closed to the public to consider a report in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989, as amended, relating to a contractual matter.


PAGE 136

Agenda 10 july 2013

Documents

Transcript of Agenda 10 july 2013